-
Coremelt’s SliceX is awesome
-
[Bret Williams] “Damn autocorrect kept it from being animaTTe. So there goes your rap. Sorry.”
Then with your permission….
++++
I was using animate
in ninety-eight where I was at – YO.++++
Editing being what we do and all.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.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] ” 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.”
I think you’re finally starting to get it!
Steve Connor
‘It’s just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure” -
And yet Apple’s own marketing can’t articulate these features in its marketing.
I think FCPX/Motion would excel in the kind of environment where there needs to be controlled branding.
Some people bring up ease of use. SliceX is a major improvement of the awkward point control garbage matte control of FCP Legacy.
Others often bring up the dependency on third party support as if it were a deficiency. If Apple builds the proper hooks (and to me this is far more important than building in features), third parties can focus on their specialties.
As a side note, it’s interesting that NoiseIndustries has also updated their plugin set for PremierePro support. Obviously that’s a desirable market but, based on NI’s issues, it’s a much more difficult hurdle. NI notes some filters won’t work and transitions require, what I consider, awkward execution.
I suspect Apple is focusing on extensibility and while they certainly have much further to go, I think that’s one of their underlying developmental goals for FCPX.
Personally I still think Round-tripping will return when Logic X comes out. I think that whole “subsection” is still under development and won’t be out until all the pieces are in place.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “You can key frame the matte position/scale/rotation, you just can’t keyframe the individual points.”
this is why i miss Color, where you could keyframe as many points as you wanted, and control the amount of feather everywhere.
but i agree keyframing is boring. let’s hope for Color X, with auto tracking of the points. (and three way round tripping with FCP X and Motion X! ) -
[nicolas horne] “this is why i miss Color, where you could keyframe as many points as you wanted, and control the amount of feather everywhere.
but i agree keyframing is boring. let’s hope for Color X, with auto tracking of the points. (and three way round tripping with FCP X and Motion X! )”I don’t know much, but I would imagine Lock and Load X does some sort of tracking.
It would be cool if SliceX could use lock and load tracking data.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “[nicolas horne] “this is why i miss Color, where you could keyframe as many points as you wanted, and control the amount of feather everywhere.
but i agree keyframing is boring. let’s hope for Color X, with auto tracking of the points. (and three way round tripping with FCP X and Motion X! )”I don’t know much, but I would imagine Lock and Load X does some sort of tracking.
It would be cool if SliceX could use lock and load tracking data.”
I don’t miss Color because Resolve does the same job even better
Steve Connor
‘It’s just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure” -
[Bill Davis] “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?)”
A classic counterexample might be Smoke — very broad feature set, very fast performance. (Admittedly this came with very high hardware requirements until very recently.)
[Bill Davis] “Not just hundreds – but thousands of UI controls.”
From a UI perspective, Autodesk showed the way years ago. Smoke is highly contextual (both in 2012 and earlier, as well as the 2013 Pre-Release), showing only the tools and information relevant for the task at hand. The UI is massively deep, but very well designed and organized, striving for consistency as a primary driver of UI familiarity and speed.
[Bill Davis] “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. “
FCPX and M5 share a renderer, and they both have to handle media I/O. An integrated FCPX/M5 (really what I was hoping for in FCP8, pre-X) could actually be lighter-weight from a system resource perspective than running FCPX and M5 as separate apps at the same time.
[Bill Davis] “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.”
But it doesn’t have to be a tool dedicated to mograph. Animation/compositing apps have toolsets that are useful in design, color correction, compositing, and editorial. (In fact, you could argue that all these tools today are fundamentally special-purpose compositors.)
Personally, I see all these disciplines converging (though I am the first to admit some bias here). I don’t believe anyone on the market today has a truly outstanding solution that wraps this all together in the one perfect package, and I see both significant strengths and weaknesses in Adobe’s, Apple’s, and Autodesk’s respective approaches to the problem.
[Bill Davis] “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.”
Motion sells for $50. As Aindreas has pointed out elsewhere, Motion is rarely used as a primary design application. It’s practically an FCPX plugin. If there’s any damage to the perceived value of mograph there, it’s already been done.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “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.”
Indeed. I keep waiting for FCPX/M5 to get some traction in my niche. No signs of that as of yet, but the shared renderer and system of checks and balances between designer and editor are very interesting.
Not to belabor the low-ceiling point, but adding expressions to Motion would make it an exponentially more powerful tool when considering rigging and publishing. Feature request!
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “Indeed. I keep waiting for FCPX/M5 to get some traction in my niche. No signs of that as of yet, but the shared renderer and system of checks and balances between designer and editor are very interesting.”
completely – I feel like shedding a single tear for the motion rigging effort – if you think of it in terms of a designer today deploying a layered PSD ref, instead he is deploying controlled type, object, colour, as live alternate template options directly accessible within the editing system, even an imported PSD in PPro can’t offer this kind of deployed brand conditionality – but..
but the core FCPX editing timeline failure was waaaay too big.Apple took a gigantic risk reducing its intellectual scape so far, and my bile aside, the main proposition; the editing environment itself, is simply rejected as a valid editing exercise. or at least according to my propaganda. still – I don’t see how they get a functional timeline – i think they eke this out and it fades to vegas or edius. I don’t think there is any pulling this misfire back. the core A/B methodology is too loony and burned in.
incredible missed opportunity all the same given the level of effort.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “completely – I feel like shedding a single tear for the motion rigging effort – if you think of it in terms of a designer today deploying a layered PSD ref, instead he is deploying controlled type, object, colour, as live alternate template options directly accessible within the editing system, even an imported PSD in PPro can’t offer this kind of deployed brand conditionality – but.. but the core FCPX editing timeline failure was waaaay too big. “
Looking at agency work, there are two hurdles. To get this benefit, it’s not enough to get agency editors away from FCP7/MC/Pr/whatever over to FCPX — you have to get agency designers away from Ae to M5, too.
It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem, but the benefit is tantalizing enough that I don’t think it’s completely outside the realm of possibility.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “incredible missed opportunity all the same given the level of effort.”
Short-term, yes.
Long-term? Maybe not. Apple have nothing to lose here. They can play in this space as long as they want without penalty. For all the Sturm und Drang here over Apple’s decision not to release an FCP8 or a real 2012 Mac Pro, there are stil an awful lot of people here who look at me like I’m stark raving mad when start talking about PCs.
There’s the question of resources, which comes up here every so often. With their $117B of cash-on-hand [link], Apple could buy Adobe ($16.11B market cap), Autodesk ($6.95B market cap), and Avid ($240M market cap), leaving them just shy of enough cash left over to buy Amazon ($102B market cap) just because their name starts with A, too. (Give them another couple quarters and that might be achievable as well.) Skip Amazon for now, and buy Sony ($10.81B market cap), and then it’s FCPX vs Lightworks.
Now I don’t think Apple cares enough about the digital content creation space to go buying out competitors. However, they certainly have enough cash that they can afford to wait until college kids starting on FCPX today start making NLE purchasing decisions in the workplace in the future.
In more practical terms, people can’t stay on FCP7 forever. As interesting as the last year and a half has been, I think the next year and a half will be more interesting as it becomes less and less practical for the sorts of institutions that you and I have been discussing to remain on Legend. They’ll have to go somewhere…
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up