-
Does “FCPX or Not” really boil down to “AE or Not?”
Having followed this forum on-and-off for 2 years, I’ve noticed a few trends among the “Not” crowd, which I consider myself part of (i.e. I don’t like FCPX, and have even started migrating to Windows after 25 years on Macs). For example: People who still use tape don’t like FCPX. People who work in big post-houses don’t like FCPX. People who cut news often DO like FCPX. And so forth… Please don’t make a big stink if your individual situation contradicts the above generalities. I really only mention them as examples. What I really want to know about is how much you use After Effects. I’m a big fan of AE. I’ve used it nearly 20 years, and consider myself a “power user.” I’ll probably (reluctantly) join CC because of it.
What I want to know is the following:
1. Do you use much AE? and
2. Do you use/like FCPX?
EXTRA CREDIT: If you answer “yes” to both, what is your workflow?For me, a real dealbreaker was the difficulty bringing my full edit into AE, while maintaining control over individual clips/layers. Automatic Duck wasn’t perfect, but it was good, especially near the end. Dynamic Link with Premiere is pretty good, despite its quirks. Though I must admit that I haven’t checked in a while, I don’t remember there being any comparable workflow from FCPX to AE.
If this is indeed the case, then I wanted to test my hypothesis: Heavy AE users are in the camp of “Not” regarding FCPX, and most of the FCPX supporters don’t extensively use After Effects. So let me know what you think.
And remember, this is for posterity, so be honest.
Professor, Producer, Editor
and former Apple Employee -
20 Replies
-
Yes to both. I’ve used AE since 1996. I hardly ever export a sequence to AE. It could be useful I guess, but generally I’m creating stuff from scratch in AE and exporting a ProRes 422 or 4444 if alpha is needed. I export individual shots for use in AE but that’s not generally that big of a deal.
For FCP X, try “clip exporter.” It’s free. Doesn’t seem to translate as much as Automatic Duck, pretty much just the sequence, but it works.
-
Yes to both but with qualifications. I only use AE when I absolutely need to. I don’t do much in the way of graphics work. So I’ll use it for whatever it can do that other apps don’t. Using FCPX doesn’t keep me from using AE. But again, I have never needed to send full sequences over to it. Just individual clips.
Michael Garber
5th Wall – a post production company
Blog: GARBERSHOP
My Moviola Webinar on Cutting News in FCP X -
I guess I’m kind of backwards.
My most recent project was done almost completely in Cinema4D and After Effects. I used FCPX to do some audio edits, and where it was most helpful was in cranking out client reviews and the client’s finals.
I still need Legacy FCP for getting Tape assets, but I’m slowly getting into FCPX and I hope it continues its development apace.
This is one part of my project. The audio mix was done elsewhere, and I added effects to complement the edit.
-
Yes to both, but that’s going to change. AE has been an excellent companion to our work since we switched to linear editing on Avid. When we moved to FCP we continued using AE. But when Motion became part of the FCS suite we gradually started doing a lot of graphics and comp work in Motion because it is faster for quick every-day jobs like creating custom lower thirds, openers and bumpers. Since we added a Flame station to our film post workflow we also started doing the more complex broadcast related comping in Flame, and AE became less important.
We have adopted FCPX from day one, first on two test systems and since October last year in full production. No regrets whatsoever. At the same time I have set up a test workflow using FCPX for editing and Smoke 2013 for finishing. It’s a pretty decent workflow as SMAC imports FCPX projects quite flawlessly and it’s like you are comping right on your editing timeline, being able to do any last minute editorial changes as well as versioning while you are finishing.
Now it’s only a matter of seeing what Apple will do with Motion before I decide which route we will finally go. AE will probably not be part of that route anymore.
-
I used Shake a few times back before apple dumped it and I actually really liked it. I found the nodal interface more intuitive and satisfying than layers. Actually satisfying is maybe the key word there.
In any software using layers it feels as if, as a project grows in complexity the chance of it developing some problem which I have no idea how to fix approaches 1. The question is whether or not I can finish what I want to do before I lose the sense of what it is I’m actually doing. When I close AE at the end of a job I give thanks to the compositing gods that they have chosen not to punish me this time. Though maybe that’s just my own lack of experience. Nodal interfaces seems to scale much better – complexity is additive rather than logarithmic.
I’m about to start learning AE properly. Would anyone out there recommend Nuke as an alternative? Given that most of my work will be simple fixes, keying, titles. I could be doing more complex stuff in the future though.
-
And in answer to the OP; I don’t use FCPX but if adobe continue with the current rental model and the next Motion update is amazing, I will have another look.
-
Just got my hands on Clip Exporter, works great for me.
-
If you don’t plan on doing really complex comps then you should consider Smoke. Personally I feel that FCPX, Motion, Smoke and Resolve is a really good end to end package for offline and online. I consider 3D to be separate from this process.
So with this setup you have access to good Keying tools (Motion has a fantastic Keyer, even better than Smoke’s Master Keyer which is no slouch), Titles, Tracking, Stabilization, basic Roto, Camera Projection, Particles, Paint, and node based 3D Compositing within Smoke.
Motion is already amazing. I was blown away when I gave it another look a couple of months ago, and I now use it exclusively for Titling and it’s Particle System is fantastic – and it complements Smoke really well, since it doesn’t have one.
Nuke is great – but if you’re more focused on editorial then I feel that Smoke+Motion is a better fit. If however, you plan on doing hardcore comping, then you should probably go with Nuke.
Best,
Sandeep. -
Don’t use AE. Love FCPX. For any complicated graphics, we hire out to individual graphics folks. They all use AE but they deliver Pro Res 444 files to us and we cut ’em into our X timeline.
That said, for a lot of titles/graphics work we can use what we’ve got with X, Motion and templates/plug ins.
Don’t see that changing anytime soon. Big picture, we edit in-house and our hired graphics folks can use whatever tool they wish.
-
Interestingly enough, I just blogged about that:
https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2013/06/22/after-effects-for-the-finish/
I don’t really see an incompatibility between X and AE. Since I don’t do 3D, I also don’t see a big plus for CC over CS6. Cut in X and send a flat file to AE. Split the clip at the cuts and you are ready to go. ClipExporter gives you handles, but it’s not a deal breaker without it.
OTOH, Motion is also worth investigating. Cheaper, more real-time and faster rendering than AE.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up