-
Coremelt’s SliceX is awesome
-
[Bill Davis] “Next you’ll be asking Apple to bring back Bruce and posting pictures of your 1984 original Mac…”
“I’m glad it’s getting weird again. I didn’t understand it when it wasn’t weird.” I couldn’t agree more, Bruce. Please come back and espouse your words of wisdom.
All I’m saying, Bill, is that there are good reasons to have more tools in one box than having less tools in more boxes. You don’t seem to be ashamed of Soundtrack Pro filters and tools being wrapped in to FCPX do you? What about the FCPX shape masks and secondary color correction tools? While primitive, they are pretty good and a welcome addition to an NLE.
Motion, with all of it’s strengths, could be a great addition. The types of things that Motion can do are part of the broader “editing” term, at least for me. If I’m doing it there are many many others that are doing it.
I also color correct my footage, my guess is that there’s a lot of people that don’t. Should we pull all of the color correction tools out of FCPX because some people don’t use it?
It’s why I like the idea of Dynamic Link so much in the Adobe Suite. I use Ae a lot and I’m not a motion graphics designer. If Ae’s tools could be wrapped right in to Premiere’s interface, I’d be OK with it. What I don’t like about it, is that it creates yet another container in the timeline.
With SliceX, there’s no container, simply a filter, and I don’t have to send/receive. It’s right there at my fingertips at all times.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “All I’m saying, Bill, is that there are good reasons to have more tools in one box than having less tools in more boxes.”
No problem, but there are also good reasons to have fewer boxes. IRL, size and weight come to mind. I think there’s a general virtual equivalent to that. Bloat. Lots of people here are commenting that the 10.06 update was nice in that things were “snappier” as to performance. At what point does “more tools in one box” promote the opposite? (turgidity, perhaps?)
[Jeremy Garchow] “Motion, with all of it’s strengths, could be a great addition. The types of things that Motion can do are part of the broader “editing” term, at least for me. If I’m doing it there are many many others that are doing it.”
I guess I just see Motion as existing in a whole different realm of complexity. Maybe I don’t understand code well enough to understand how it’s not – but Apple elected to make it it’s own program with a custom built UI that suits it’s wheelhouse tasks. Then they extracted just the most necessary modules of it (and used the same underlying “language”) in order to make it work as the X titler.
I just can’t conceive how you’d wrap the entirety of it into X without increasing program bloat significantly. I feel this way because Motion 5 has HUGE depth. Not just hundreds – but thousands of UI controls. Wrapping them into the body of X just for the percentage of it’s users who are willing to spend the time and effort to do that level of MoGraph work regularly seems kinda silly. Particularly when there’s a perfectly reasonable way to do it right now.
This is probably coming from my conditioned resistance to adding too much “expectation” to the video creation process.
For instance, many years ago I learned to LOATHE 3D titling – not because it wasn’t visually exciting – it clearly was. But because the typical client conversation was always “If our budget is $10,000 for the spot with regular titles – what’s the budget for the same project with fancy 3D titles? And the answer was nearly universal: $10,000.
Same with Motion Graphics these days.
Hours and hours of additional work – but usually little if any flexibility on the compensation end.
I know there are plenty of shops where that’s NOT the case. But I also think wrapping it in would strengthen the idea that MoGraph work is now just a fundamentally expected part of day to day editing.
And that would hurt, rather than help, the perceived value of specialized work.
FWIW.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Bret Williams] “I was using animate in 1998.”
This gonna start a RAP throw down?
I was using animate
in nineteen hundred ninety eight – YO.Cut my teeth on A/B Roll
Learning AVID was a strollBut X has got me spinning, ya’ll
Cuz da learning curve is TOO damn tall.(oh, never mind)
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Bill Davis] ” but Apple elected to make it it’s own program with a custom built UI that suits it’s wheelhouse tasks.”
Have you taken a good look at Motion 5? What does it look like to you?
Here’s a refresher:
FCP 7:
Motion 4:
FCP X:
Motion 5:
[Bill Davis] “Then they extracted just the most necessary modules of it (and used the same underlying “language”) in order to make it work as the X titler.”
If you are referring to publishing certain parts of it to X, but it’s fairly limited. You cannot access Motion directly in X. You are basically creating your own filters that share some sort of framework, you aren’t using Motion when you open a published effect. There is a reason when you open Motion is asks if you want to create a “Final Cut Pro Effect”. If you add parts of Motion back to the FCPX filter that aren’t publishable in X, they get lost along the way.
[Bill Davis] “Not just hundreds – but thousands of UI controls. Wrapping them into the body of X just for the percentage of it’s users who are willing to spend the time and effort to do that level of MoGraph work regularly seems kinda silly. Particularly when there’s a perfectly reasonable way to do it right now.”
There isn’t a way to do it now, save what can be published. The communication is one way, you cannot start in FCPX and move to Motion, you have to start in Motion, publish an effect to FCPX, go back to FCPX, then open it back in Motion if you want it modified. WTF.
Just like my Ae example. Ae has a broad enough toolset that I don’t use it for motion graphics. I would want the same from Motion. It has certain tools that would be good to have in the edit so I don’t have to fart around with multiple renders, applications, and interfaces. The SliceX UI is a great example of this.
Jeremy
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “You cannot access Motion directly in X.”
The ability to Option Double Click on any Title Effect in X and Launch and Load it into Motion for work serves me just fine.
The full Motion code doesn’t have to be loaded up and running all the time when I”m not using it to serve my needs.
That’s all I’m saying.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Bill Davis] “The ability to Option Double Click on any Title Effect in X and Launch and Load it into Motion for work serves me just fine.
The full Motion code doesn’t have to be loaded up and running all the time when I”m not using it to serve my needs.
That’s all I’m saying.”
But what I (and others) are saying, is that Title Effects aren’t enough.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “But what I (and others) are saying, is that Title Effects aren’t enough.”
The restoration of “Send to Motion” would be enough for me.
Steve Connor
‘It’s just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure” -
[Steve Connor] “The restoration of “Send to Motion” would be enough for me.
“It’s the definition of “glaring omission.”
-
Damn autocorrect kept it from being animaTTe. So there goes your rap. Sorry.
-
I’m inclined to agree, he said randomly – I don’t see the benefit of rolling the entire cart of motion into FCPX -I actually find that impossible to imagine.
Motion as it stands – as an extremely advanced rigging area for FCPX design elements that can publish intelligent parameters that dial directly into the companion editing system, that publishing system – is light years beyond anything the other vendors are doing. light years. Adobe could whistle to try and do this. they get to virtualise AE comps as clips – and sluggishly. thats it.
If FCPX hadn’t crashed and burned as it did (argue otherwise) there would be a far more clear view of the insane advantages this kind of rigging would provide to mid size corporate and commercial clients. Its a controlled play and package area between design and editing that would be best expressed by repeated experimentation in environments where graphics guys deploy it for editors, in mid size fast moving facilities – where complex client brand elements could be shared as live intelligent elements – sub brand variables for colour and typography scale etc depending on ad components say.
But because the primary sell – FCPX itself – largely died on the ground in all the places Apple was targeting it to – we never got to see Apple’s motion play work out in the field.
Coming personally from a design background originally, I’m most sorry to see the re-working of motion with rigging in the undifferentiated trash heap.
How apple came to fundamentally re-cast motion’s role feels like the smartest thing I’ve seen in ages.aside from that – apple provisioning bezier or true b-splines (forget keyframing) in masking is probably trivial over two dot releases. although the idea of making sky replacement mattes in the editing system strikes me as silly. in 90% of cases apple’s current masking system kicks everything’s ass.
Its a fabulous masking implementation.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up