-
FCX Keyframes Busted – Update
-
There are three different modes for the crop. One is called trim and I believe that is the one that actually crops the frame without resizing it to fill the viewer. You can switch between the modes when you enter crop mode by clicking the buttons int he top left of the viewer. Right next to the Ken Burns effect…
And AGREED about a keyframe editor. Would be nice to have that extra control, although to be honest, I’ve been jumping into Motion more for the graphics stuff. I’d like better round tripping like we had in FCP7 too…
—————-
FCP Guru
http://www.fcpguru.com -
“And AGREED about a keyframe editor. Would be nice to have that extra control, although to be honest, I’ve been jumping into Motion more for the graphics stuff. I’d like better round tripping like we had in FCP7 too…”
My gut feeling is that Apple has decided to dumb down the effects within FCP X. They probably feel that those folks wanting more control should do it in Motion. What might happen in some future update could be the addition of an acceleration slider like the original Media Composer effects all had.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “My gut feeling is that Apple has decided to dumb down the effects within FCP X”
I’m not convinced of this. There is too much in FCX that’s powerful and professional to believe they are only trying to create a product for youtubers. And honestly, how much can they dumb it down and still keep it powerful? Look at the newbies on the boards trying to figure out basic stuff.
I believe that like most Apple products, they want to give us what we need to do the job, but they want it to be elegant and simple, and they’ve only left things temporarily, like stem track exports and multicam.
I think their challenge is how to figure out how to give us something simple like the HUD in Motion, but still allow us to dig in there and modify the minutiae. I’m not sure they know how to do that yet, which may be why the release of what can easily still be considered a beta version of their software.
I believe Motion is an awesome product, and if that’s the model for what they want to do with FCX, (awesome power, real-time feedback, ease of use, unlimited control) then I’m hopeful for where Final Cut is going.
———
FCX. She tempts me, abuses me, beats me up, makes me feel worthless, then in the end she comes around, helps me get my work done, gives me hope and I can’t stop thinking about her.Mark Morache
Avid/Xpri/FCP7/FCX
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
https://fcpx.wordpress.com -
[Mark Morache] “There is too much in FCX that’s powerful and professional to believe they are only trying to create a product for youtubers.”
FCP X is pretty schizophrenic. I’m not convinced Apple really knows what the best market for it is. I wouldn’t really characterize it as a product for YouTubers. Rather a product to serve journalists and mid-level, self-contained production folks. I think Apple has decided that facilities and film editors are no longer a market they want to cater to. In the end, they created a product that replaced FC Express and that could also do some high-end work. That’s why I don’t think linear versus ease-in/out moves have much importance for them in the grand scheme of things.
And please don’t point to 4K as evidence of it being a pro app. JVC is making 4K consumer cameras now 😉
[Mark Morache] “I believe that like most Apple products, they want to give us what we need to do the job, but they want it to be elegant and simple, and they’ve only left things temporarily, like stem track exports and multicam.”
Really? Apple has never produced a “power” application that I can think of. (Other than maybe Aperture.) Yes, the products are elegant and ease of use is paramount, but they also don’t scale well and lack good control over advanced features. FCP “legacy” tended to be an exception, but it came from outside. In reality its power was in versatility partially as a result of very loose parameters, such as media management. Of course, that’s a double-edged sword.
I think stems and multicam were in the plans from day one. They just couldn’t do it in time. The best guess everyone had was that it would take Apple until 2012 to come out with a 64-bit version of FCP. In fact they released it a year earlier than many had guessed. But it looks like it’s taken another year to get some of these features in and working. My opinion is that whatever we see released as an update later in Q1 will really be the version ProApps had intended from the beginning. Of course, this will be spun as being an update that was in response to user demand.
[Mark Morache] “I believe Motion is an awesome product, and if that’s the model for what they want to do with FCX”
Huh? Motion 5 took several major steps backwards from previous versions. And Motion has never been up to par with AE, Nuke, Fusion or even Shake when it comes to really complex work. I’m not saying it isn’t a fun program to use at times and the new keyer is definitely better than before. But I have to wonder, how many users do more than just fiddle with a few templates. Motion’s big marquee feature from the start has been Behaviors – the epitome of removing control and finesse from the user.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Motion 5 took several major steps backwards from previous versions…Motion’s big marquee feature from the start has been Behaviors – the epitome of removing control and finesse from the user.”
I couldn’t disagree more with you about Motion, Oliver. The only major step back in my opinion with Motion 5 is the lack of round-tripping. The new keyer, 64 bit rewrite, the rigging and effects integration with FCPX are all really high-quality upgrades to the program.
Also, I don’t consider behaviors to be the epitome of removing control. Especially since behaviors are merely another way to animate in Motion, not the only way. And since many behaviors can also be keyframed as well as work in conjunction with keyframed parameters. Behaviors make animating in Motion easier (in my opinion), but easy is not the same thing as a loss of control.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Andy Neil] “The only major step back in my opinion with Motion 5 is the lack of round-tripping”
Lack of dual monitor support.
[Andy Neil] ” the rigging and effects integration with FCPX are all really high-quality upgrades to the program”
At the loss of a true effects API for FCP X itself.
[Andy Neil] “And since many behaviors can also be keyframed as well as work in conjunction with keyframed parameters”
For me, keyframing in the keyframe editor is a mess compared with AE, but that a very subjective issue, of course.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Lack of dual monitor support.”
Motion never had solid dual monitor support. There were loads of issues stemming from Motion not playing well over 2 monitors.
[Oliver Peters] “At the loss of a true effects API for FCP X itself.”
That is a FCP issue, not a Motion issue. Plus, there is much room for improvement in the effects building capabilities of Motion for use in FCPX.
[Oliver Peters] “For me, keyframing in the keyframe editor is a mess compared with AE, but that a very subjective issue, of course.”
You won’t get an argument out of me regarding the keyframe editor, but that is clearly not a step back since its essentially the same as previous versions. Besides, I was pointing out that behaviors don’t limit your ability to keyframe or maintain control of your animations; quite the opposite.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Andy Neil] “Motion never had solid dual monitor support.”
Well, sort of. I’m really thinking more in terms of custom layouts. The fact that you could tear off elements of the UI and organize them across two displays.
[Andy Neil] “You won’t get an argument out of me regarding the keyframe editor, but that is clearly not a step back since its essentially the same as previous versions. Besides, I was pointing out that behaviors don’t limit your ability to keyframe or maintain control of your animations; quite the opposite.”
OK. More a case of taster’s choice I suppose. 😉 My point was that it was Apple’s attempt to hide as much under the hood as possible.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “My gut feeling is that Apple has decided to dumb down the effects within FCP X. They probably feel that those folks wanting more control should do it in Motion.”
[Mark Morache] I’m not convinced of this. There is too much in FCX that’s powerful and professional to believe they are only trying to create a product for youtubers. And honestly, how much can they dumb it down and still keep it powerful?”
Actually the FXPlug 2.0 documentation quite strongly supports Olivers gut feeling:
Users of Final Cut Pro X are looking to solve specific tasks rather than to apply particular effects. In general, you should avoid publishing long lists of parameters that are likely to confuse users and make completing their tasks harder rather than easier.
Advanced users who need more control will be able to either open your Final Cut Effect in Motion and edit it themselves, or create their own Final Cut Effects within Motion for their specific task. Remember, less advanced users will be overwhelmed by filters that are too complex and won’t generally need to control every parameter in a given filter.
Admittedly this is about publishing effects from motion, not effect handling in FCPX, but it still shows their point of view.
Stephan
-
[Oliver Peters] “don’t point to 4K as evidence of it being a pro app”
Perhaps FCP X could be characterized as a Pro app because it takes a pro to figure out how to make it work? As Mark has clearly demonstrated.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up