-
Essential Graphics vs Motion Templates
-
[andy patterson] “Was the Chevy Logo created in FCPX or Motion?”
All in FCP X using stock title, generators and effects. Thought be fair I did have to make the bowtie logo into a font using a couple free web based conversion sites.
Was gonna mess with it in Pr, but for some reason it shows up doubled side by side… It shows up properly in everything else, Word, Email, whatever. I’ll see if I can figure out why if I get a minute sometime.
[andy patterson] “it just depends if it would really compliment the the products or services for the client. “
Agree. And honestly, no matter how good any canned titles or templates are, they’re best only for a starting point or inspiration. If for no other reason than they are recognizable as canned templates which is not a good thing.
[andy patterson] “I hope it is better and not worse. I will probably download it this weekend.”
It is better in many of ways, but honestly feels a little… unfinished. The fact that the “legacy” title tool is still there can make things a little confusing.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~\”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.\”~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~\”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented\”~ -
[Charlie Austin] “[andy patterson] “Was the Chevy Logo created in FCPX or Motion?”
All in FCP X using stock title, generators and effects. Thought be fair I did have to make the bowtie logo into a font using a couple free web based conversion sites.”
I appreciate your honesty but that is kind of my point. Using a dedicated 3-D animation program to create simple logos is not hard at all and I bet I could do it faster and easier with a dedicated 3-D program than you could using FCPX. Having said that I bet you could do it really fast and easy using Carrara yourself. You are so close to working in a dedicated 3-D program. The jump would not be huge. Having said that the canned effects and templates might be better in one NLE but creating logos might be better in another NLE. I will admit everyone’s needs will be different.
[Charlie Austin] “[andy patterson] “I hope it is better and not worse. I will probably download it this weekend.”
It is better in many of ways, but honestly feels a little… unfinished. The fact that the “legacy” title tool is still there can make things a little confusing.”
Thanks for the info. I think it is good to have both titling systems for a while until people get used to the new system. Having said that thanks for the demo. I would like to include the video clips in a demo I am creating if I can.
-
[andy patterson] ” I bet you could do it really fast and easy using Carrara yourself. You are so close to working in a dedicated 3-D program. The jump would not be huge. Having said that the canned effects and templates might be better in one NLE but creating logos might be better in another NLE. I will admit everyone’s needs will be different.”
Of course. And, honestly, neither FCP X or Motion are billed as 3D Programs. They do 3D text, and very well, and can be hacked into doing 3D objects like the bowtie. I certainly wouldn’t present that logo to Chevy, it was just slapped together. You’ll always get better results when you use an app that was designed to do this.
However, you can do some interesting things with FCP X and Motion. (fwiw, this guy freely admits that these could be done better in dedicated 3D modeling apps, but still… he made an FCP X plugin out of them)
[andy patterson] “Having said that thanks for the demo. I would like to include the video clips in a demo I am creating if I can.”
Sure, just add the caveat that it was done *very* quickly, with no fine tuning at all in an app that wasn’t intended to do this type of thing. 🙂
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~\”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.\”~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~\”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented\”~ -
[andy patterson] “Using a dedicated 3-D animation program to create simple logos is not hard at all and I bet I could do it faster and easier with a dedicated 3-D program than you could using FCPX.”
For a slick execution of a simple extrusion like this? I bet not. Charlie’s going to have it done before you even start your render. (Also, Charlie won’t have to render!)
But let’s get real. Who, in the real world, uses their NLE to produce logos? What on earth is the purpose of this line of discussion? If we’re talking about titling, why would you exclude Motion (for FCPX) and After Effects (for Premiere Pro) from the discussion?
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Walter Soyka] “[andy patterson] “Using a dedicated 3-D animation program to create simple logos is not hard at all and I bet I could do it faster and easier with a dedicated 3-D program than you could using FCPX.”
For a slick execution of a simple extrusion like this? I bet not. Charlie’s going to have it done before you even start your render. (Also, Charlie won’t have to render!)”
Keep in mind Charlie had to use plugins and workarounds for the Chevy Logo and even then it did not replicate the sample logo 100%. It looked good but it was not identical. As far as rendering is concerned I stated in another thread I don’t think FCPX uses ray-tracing. Rendering can take a long time if you have several metal and glass objects in the same scene and make use of ray-tracing. If you do not use ray-tracing (I don’t think FCPX does) the rendering will be done in two seconds if you are just animating text. Keep in mind you can take a picture of the side of a brick house and use the brick image for a shader in a 3-D program as opposed to actually using a displacement map. When I see titles in FCPX they have that look to them as opposed to a real textured displacement map. That is why FCPX does not need to render anything. It kind of fakes true 3-D.
[Walter Soyka] “But let’s get real. Who, in the real world, uses their NLE to produce logos?”
I have used Premiere Pro to make logos in the past but my point was that there is a difference between a logo and a simple text/title animation. Wouldn’t you agree? Isn’t that worth clarifying? Having said that I can create mattes/masks in Premiere Pro really easy and I do that all the time using the titling/graphics tools in Premiere Pro. I will have a video up soon to show what Premiere Pro on it’s own can do. I will also show how easy it is to use a true 3-D software program for animating titles.
[Walter Soyka] “What on earth is the purpose of this line of discussion?”
In this thread we are comparing the graphics capabilities of FCPX and Premiere Pro. It is worth discussing the pros and cons of each not just which one has better canned effects/templates.
[Walter Soyka] “If we’re talking about titling, why would you exclude Motion (for FCPX) and After Effects (for Premiere Pro) from the discussion?”
We were comparing the two programs exclusively but I do agree with you. If we include AE with Premiere Pro how can anyone say the titling system in Premiere Pro is worse than the titling system in FCPX? I have provided a link below that talks about the titling systems of FCPX Vs Premiere Pro as does this thread. I would like to think GM would prefer you animate the Chevy Logo as oppose to animating the word Chevy? That is not say FCPX cannot be used for motion graphics.
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/94929
-
[andy patterson] “Charlie had to use plugins and workarounds for the Chevy Logo”
I don’t know what he used, but it certainly seemed to be faster than it’s taking you to put your video up.
-
[Tony West] “[andy patterson] “Charlie had to use plugins and workarounds for the Chevy Logo”
I don’t know what he used, but it certainly seemed to be faster than it’s taking you to put your video up.”
My video was just about ready until this thread got started. I have to include Charlie’s video clips to make a comparison. Keep in mind my video will be some what of a tutorial with voice over showing how things are done. Charlie did not show how it was done. Those videos take a bit longer. I also have a lot of things to cover in my video. I will show 3-D animation and 2-D motion graphics. I imagine my video will be about 20 minutes when completed.
-
[Walter Soyka] “What on earth is the purpose of this line of discussion?”
Excellent question. ☺ This thread was started to compare the canned titles in Premiere vs the canned titles in FCP X. Not sure how we ended up discussing 3D object modeling in FCP X (which is not something it is intended to do). I guess it’s my fault for making the silly bowtie animation. Mea Cowpa… ????
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~\”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.\”~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~\”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented\”~ -
[andy patterson] “Charlie did not show how it was done.”
Bored again tonight, so here ya go.. 15 min real time, ~4 of which were spent creating the font to use, so 10-11 min., no rendering. I sped it it up. A lot. ☺
Again, FCP X is not 3D Modeling software and I’m not suggesting that it is. At all.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~\”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.\”~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~\”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented\”~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.
-
[Charlie Austin] “[andy patterson] “Charlie did not show how it was done.”
Bored again tonight, so here ya go.. 15 min real time, ~4 of which were spent creating the font to use, so 10-11 min., no rendering. I sped it it up. A lot. ☺
Again, FCP X is not 3D Modeling software and I’m not suggesting that it is. At all. “
That’s actually pretty cool, thanks for sharing Charlie. It’s like a much better version of 3D invigorator. ☺
Shawn
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up