-
Apple gives up another network client
-
[Craig Seeman] ” I can’t help but consider that Apple thought Motion’s real time playback (and the supporting GPU needed) would bring people into the Mac family… or at least discourage them from moving to Windows (After Effects being cross platform).”
I don’t imagine they spent all that time developing Motion from the ground-up if they had anything but that intention. Although it might just have been easier to buy Adobe and make their products all Mac only!
Steve Connor
‘It’s just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure” -
[Walter Soyka] “v4 had just come out, but Murch used v3. Cinema Tools was important.
https://www.digitalcontentproducer.com/dcc/revfeat/video_final_cutting_cold/
“In that same article, here’s his quote:
“But Final Cut Pro does represent a wonderful 100th birthday present for modern film editing, which really began around 1903. The notion of non-proprietary software systems that can run on CPUs, without special hardware, combined with Apple’s courageous decision to use the XML protocol, which is wide open to all third-party developers to interface with, is huge. ”
Maybe he had access to an early v4 build or something. I don’t know.
[Walter Soyka] “Yes! But Aindreas is posing the question: will FCPX follow in Legend’s footsteps, or Motion’s?
In other words, why did FCP become legendary in its space, but Motion did not? “
It was a “better” application, and by better I mean more useful. Of course the marketing is going to tell you Motion is going to take over the world. We all know that it’s not true.
[Walter Soyka] “Almost all production I’m seeing is still wherever it was (Avid or Legend).”
Yep…
No reason to jump quite yet.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “I can take that – its a sort of a straw man argument anyway – any movement from FCP, that there has been, has been to either Avid say in the case of Mark Raudonis or Premiere in the case of Associated Press’s entire editing operation, there has been absolutely no moves of any significance towards FCPX.”
So you say.
We know of a few, but we don’t know what we don’t know. It seems to me, also anecdotal, that many people who started on FCS are moving to Premiere, those who have started on Avid are moving back to Avid. There are, of course, exceptions to those rules. I also think this is geographic. Again, it’s just anecdotal, or straw man, or whatever convenient allegory you’d like to assign to it.
There are also plenty of people moving to FCPX.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Also FCPX is not comparable as an option to either of them, its a weirdo, non-standard piece of kit, relying heavily on imovie originated metaphors that bears no comparison to its predecessor or its two main competitors. Avid has a sizeable long standing installed base, and premiere basically gets called FCP8 quite often – its not really true, but its not far off either.”
Yes, their designs haven’t changed too much from inception.
Is Prelude a standard piece of kit? Is Dynamic Link a standard piece of kit? Standards will change. My 5 camera example earlier in this thread is a perfect example of how FCPX rises to the needs of modern production and does it in a way that is better than others. Yes, I said it, better.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “there is no standing skills base for FCPX, and it ignores a wide number of standing conventions.”
*shrug* What do you expect for a new program? Are you saying a person who edits on FCPX, and perhaps started in Avid, doesn’t have an editing skill set? I don’t get this argument either.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “I brought up the comparison to Motion because Motion never went anywhere, it never appeared on jobs boards, and no one ever bothered putting it on their CVs – it was just motion in the suite. With motion Apple rejected a lot of existing practise and threw in all kinds of stuff like behaviours and so on. They said it was going to revolutionise motion graphics. It didn’t. it was completely ignored.”
Some products are more successful than others. Let’s face it, FCP was the darling of the suite. Color helped bring color correction to many more people than before, Motion was a tool in the suite, just like Cinema Tools, and DVDSP, and the people that needed those tools used them. Just because someone tells you to go jump off a bridge doesn’t mean you are going to jump off of a bridge. Marketing is marketing.
On Avid’s site, it tells me Media Composer is going to allow me to edit faster in more ways than ever….hmm.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “I say FCPX is Motion. Its completely non-standard, its got simplified operations and a weird methodology, on top of that it has received hideous press, and while I know I’m vocal at it on this forum, it is pretty broadly disliked software. Hence all those stories at release about “editing world explodes in disgust at bloody awful software, shakes fist at apple””
[Aindreas Gallagher] “more fundamentally I return to my basic point – this software lacks friends.
Its broadly disliked, has shown zero market penetration (one BBC magazine editor doth not a spring make), it never appears in jobs listings, whereas as FCP7, Avid, and now quite regularly Premiere 6 do.”
I guess I see this as a no brainer. We all know FCPX’s shortcomings, we also know what is coming in terms of features, and I am sure there are some coming that we don’t know. There is no way FCPX can replace FCS at this time, or Avid, or CS6. It’s not up to speed. It makes sense that there’s no “job listings” quite yet. A facility would have to be crazy to switch to such a new piece of software all at once.
This does not mean it’s dead on the vine, it is merely a seed, just like Prelude, or Speedgrade, or maybe even Smoke 2013.
-
[David Lawrence] “[Craig Seeman] “Sans any hard facts about Apple’s marketing strategy my gut informs me (I think that’s what the growling means) that Herb may be right on this.”
Here’s the 2004 Press Release:
https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/04/18Apple-Introduces-Motion.html
Key quote:
“Motion opens the door for everyone to create professional-quality motion graphics by eliminating the need for complex timelines and keyframes,” said Rob Schoeben, Apple’s vice president of Applications Marketing. “With its revolutionary technology, breakthrough ease-of-use and low $299 price tag, Motion may do for motion graphics what Final Cut Pro did for non-linear editing—bring the ability to create pro-quality results to the masses.”Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? I’m with Aindreas on this.
“I think you guys are all making way too much out of this. I totally get where you are coming from, especially the AE folk. AE folk have always crapped on Motion, and probably rightfully so.
I can only say that for me, at the time, it WAS a revolutionary tool. It was really cool to get near realtime feedback on a G5. Behaviors were fun to play with. I really enjoyed using it. It made creating GFX fun again. Oh, oh. See, maybe the X parallel isn’t so far off. I guess the reason that Motion worked for me is that it let me do as much or more than I needed to, and X doesn’t work for me because it doesn’t (yet) let me do all I need to do.
I’ve done quite well with Motion. So I get peeved, a bit, when people speak ill of her, even when she probably deserves it.
-
[Shawn Miller] “IMO, yes. FCPX may not need it as much as Motion. But I do think that Motion needs a “Cold Mountain moment” as well as a Mark Christiansen, a Stu Maschwitz, a VideoCopilot.net, an intensive course on FXPHD (or similar), and a post house like The Orphanage (R.I.P) to help drive its popularity. I might be wrong here, but I feel as if I haven’t seen Motion used to it’s fullest potential yet. If people were producing MoGraph or VFX work on par with what we normally associate the AE, then I think Motion would gain a lot more traction. Otherwise, it might as well be HitFilm (formerly Alam DV); a lot of great features… but relatively obscure and underpowered.
Just my opinion,”
And what if it did turn in to Alam DV? Would Apple go under? Would the post production community lose out? No, it wouldn’t. I don’t think that Motion deserves, or even wants, a Cold Mountain moment. Well wait, this just came to mind: https://provideocoalition.com/index.php/mspencer/story/billy_fox_and_motion/
And that’s what Motion is good for. Editors doing some compositing. It’s not that sexy.
Motion is fine for a lot of things, but it is not Ae and probably never will be.
After Effects has ALWAYS operated on a higher level than Motion. Ae is a 20 year old juggernaut.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “n that same article, here’s his quote:
“But Final Cut Pro does represent a wonderful 100th birthday present for modern film editing, which really began around 1903. The notion of non-proprietary software systems that can run on CPUs, without special hardware, combined with Apple’s courageous decision to use the XML protocol, which is wide open to all third-party developers to interface with, is huge. ”
Maybe he had access to an early v4 build or something. I don’t know”
Yes, I think I read somewhere that he did.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “…any movement from FCP, that there has been, has been to either Avid say in the case of Mark Raudonis or Premiere in the case of Associated Press’s entire editing operation, there has been absolutely no moves of any significance towards FCPX.
I will attempt to reply in the style of, uh… you…
Never heard of the guy. And why should I care what some news agency cuts on? I work on projects in a specific market. Nothing else matters.
[Aindreas Gallagher] Also FCPX is … a weirdo, non-standard piece of kit, relying heavily on imovie originated metaphors that bears no comparison to its predecessor or its two main competitors… there is no standing skills base for FCPX, and it ignores a wide number of standing conventions.
Anyone who professes to be an editor has the “skills base” to use FCPX, clearly those who aren’t using it lack any real skill. MC and Premiere? Both based on conventions dating from the 19’th century. Lame.
[Aindreas Gallagher] Its broadly disliked, has shown zero market penetration …blah blah blah, Avid, blah blah blah, Premiere 6.. blah blah blah, It’s toast. I’m calling it blah blah blah, dead as say vegas,blah blah blah, no one cares. blah blah blah, FCPX blah blah blah, out of the mainstream of editing. software too weird, software too stupid.”
I think you are wrong. Since people I know disagree with you, and since I do not know you or anyone you know or any of your clients… I am right.
How was that? 😉 xoxo
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[Herb Sevush] “They were quite clear at the launch that they wanted Motion to be the pre-eminent MoGfx program out there – they wanted to knock off AE, just the same way they want FCPX to be the market leader in NLEs. They weren’t shy about it. Also, as Craig and others have often pointed out, they make software to sell hardware. They didn’t launch Motion to be the titler program for Final Cut, they wanted a market leader that you would have to buy Apple hardware to use.”
Pretty lofty goals, then. I don’t remember any of that marketing, but all I really cared about was FCP, and then Color.
-
[David Lawrence] “Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? I’m with Aindreas on this.”
Wow, even the VP of Applications Marketing ‘sort of’ believed in Motion.
it MAY do for motion graphics what FCP did for editing. MAY being the operative word.
At least they were realistic about it then. I don’t see anything in that release about taking down After Effects?
Jeremy
-
[Steve Connor] “the boutique suites of Soho “
I could never wear racing strips on a shirt, nor could I drive a moped. They’re dead to me.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up