-
FCP X – steady as she goes.
-
[Walter Soyka] “[andy patterson] “The FCPX/Motion connection is a tad bit over-hyped in my opinion.”
I disagree. From a design perspective, I think the possibilities here are usually understated! “
I think you read my post wrong. I didn’t say Motion is overhyped. I think Motion is a good program for $50.00. I am saying how the FCPX users talk about the integration between the two is overhyped. There are some cool things that you can do with Motion. Having said that FCPX on it’s own should be able to do simple mattes and masks. That is why I say it is the connection/integration that is overhyped. You shouldn’t have to use two programs to create custom titles for FCPX. That is BS. Apple can keep the integration but also put a robust titling system in FCPX so you don’t have to switch back and forth between programs releasing parameters. That wastes time. I would hate to have to always use After Effects just to create a simple track matte for Premiere Pro. Do you see my point?
[Walter Soyka] “Because we could build some robust broadcast graphics packages in Motion for the editors to use in FCPX.”
That is great if you already have Motion and want to learn Motion. As I stated why can’t FCPX have a decent titling system? Premiere Pro users can create temples using Premiere Pro. We don’t have to use a Premiere Pro/AE combo to create simple track mattes. Why should FCPX users have to use Motion to create a simple track matte and also have to waste time releasing the parameters of Motion into FCPX?
[Walter Soyka] “We could expose a few parameters to them that they could tweak right in the NLE. We could also easily limit what they could change to stay within our brand standards.”
I have already stated in several posts that templates can be useful but you know what could also be useful? Allowing FCPX do to all that with out the need for Motion. That way you only have to learn one program as opposed to two. Motion could be used for those times you want to take the titles to the cutting edge. AE can be used with Premiere Pro for that purpose as well.
[Walter Soyka] ”
I would encourage you to pick up a license of Motion and dig in before you judge it too harshly.”I already know what it can do. I am not knocking Motion nor have I ever. I am saying FCPX should have a decent titling system of it’s own. I am saying the FCPX/Motion connection is overhyped because you shouldn’t need to use two programs to create simple titles form start to finish for FCPX.
-
Couldn’t agree more. Motion/FCPX is a really powerful and very cheap tool for producing top quality video and graphics.
Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk -
[andy patterson] ” I am saying FCPX should have a decent titling system of it’s own.”
It does, it only seems to be you criticising it on here
-
Two things that need to be addressed: keyframes and image sequences. There are no hold keyframes in Final Cut and as far as I can remember it never has. I have been with Final Cut since version 3 though I skipped one upgrade cycle. Image sequences can be imported into Final Cut but you have to change the duration to 1 frame. I think Motion can handle image sequences and make them a single clip upon import. Still no mixer and once Fairlight takes off in Resolve I may just use that for the audio workflow.
To be sure Final Cut is not perfect but neither is any editing software. Even though it needs improvement, as the things mentioned earlier, I really don’t see myself jumping ship. To be honest, those things are not that major. At least I don’t have to pay rent. ????
-
[andy patterson] ” I am saying the FCPX/Motion connection is overhyped because you shouldn’t need to use two programs to create simple titles form start to finish for FCPX.”
This is a false distinction. The Ppro titler (which I like, by the way) bears no UI relationship with anything else in Ppro. It acts like a third party plug-in that just so happens to be included in the NLE. As long as the operation for the editor is fluid it does not matter how many programs or plug-ins are involved, in fact it can be hard to tell the difference. The only meaningful question to be asked is does the workflow allow for a fluid way to solve the problem? If the answer is yes it doesn’t matter how you label the various component parts – plug-in, dynamic link, Ppro Panel – if it works together it works. If they included Motion as a “room” within FCPX the way the Ppro Titler is a “room” within Ppro would that somehow make it better?
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf -
[andy patterson] “Having said that FCPX on it’s own should be able to do simple mattes and masks.”
FCPX on its own CAN do simple mattes and masks.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Tom Sefton] “Motion/FCPX is a really powerful and very cheap tool for producing top quality video and graphics.”
I am glad you agree with me. I guess we agree : )
I have stated Motion is a great program for $50.00. I have also stated Apple could easily charge $100.00 or even $200.00 for it and it would still be a good deal. My criticism is that you really need two programs if you want to create custom titles in FCPX.
-
[Herb Sevush] ”
This is a false distinction. The Ppro titler (which I like, by the way) bears no UI relationship with anything else in Ppro. It acts like a third party plug-in that just so happens to be included in the NLE.”You can dock the old titling system and even customize the GUI a bit. I don’t really see it as a third party plugin. I will admit I like the way the new titling system lets you work in the program monitor but the new titling system lacks a lot of features that the legacy titling system has. I have heard Adobe is going to make the new titling tool much better.
[Herb Sevush] “As long as the operation for the editor is fluid it does not matter how many programs or plug-ins are involved, in fact it can be hard to tell the difference. “
I hear you but what if in a side by side comparison a few things were proven to be a tad bit more efficient using Premiere Pro?
[Herb Sevush] “The only meaningful question to be asked is does the workflow allow for a fluid way to solve the problem? If the answer is yes it doesn’t matter how you label the various component parts – plug-in, dynamic link, Ppro Panel – if it works together it works. “
Something may seem very fluid until it is contrasted with another paradigm. That is not to say the FCPX/Motion paradigm does not have some cool features of it’s own.
[Herb Sevush] “If they included Motion as a “room” within FCPX the way the Ppro Titler is a “room” within Ppro would that somehow make it better?”
Why would Motion be a separate room in FCPX? That would probably not be much of a difference but perhaps the implementation could be very good. Who knows? I guess the best thing to ask is would you want to eliminate the titling system of Premiere Pro and just have a room for After Effects inside Premiere Pro? If you say you want Premiere to have a titling system to create simple custom titles, lower thirds and track mattes I would think you would expect the same of FCPX. I am not saying tethering FCPX to Motion does not work but perhaps I can provide a few examples where FCPX and Motion make somethings more complex than they need to be.
-
[Walter Soyka] “andy patterson] “Having said that FCPX on it’s own should be able to do simple mattes and masks.”
FCPX on its own CAN do simple mattes and masks.”
I am hip but as far as I know you don’t have the drawing tools and inner and out strokes as well as beveled edges. If FCPX can do all that could you please to a demonstration video? I would appreciate it.
-
[andy patterson] ” I am not saying tethering FCPX to Motion does not work but perhaps I can provide a few examples where FCPX and Motion make somethings more complex than they need to be”
Cherry picking instances where one NLE is slightly faster than another is pointless. If you need to be in the optimum efficient NLE for every single aspect of your work then I suggest you get comfortable using 8-10 different NLEs on every project. The question is can you efficiently get all of your work done in the ecosystem of a given NLE – if the answer is yes, then it doesn’t matter if that ecosystem uses plug-ins or dynamic links or any other way to connect the various tools you need to complete your work.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up