-
FCX Keyframes Busted – Update
-
[Oliver Peters] “[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.”
I think the Motion comparison is actually a very apposite one – I think people do elaborate stuff on Motion in despite of its essentially semi-pro nature which is clearly a fundamental design decision.
Behaviors are a way of giving animation control to folks who don’t want to have to learn about all that fiddly keyframing stuff – but on the other hand they are a great design idea and can be very powerful.
Motion (and even more so Motion 5) is badly lacking in some fundamental pro features – the inability to manipulate/combine/recombine individual RGBA channels is a very big mssing piece. Apple obviously don’t think their users are were ever going to want this and tellingly we have now even lost the basic Channel Swap filter out of Motion 4.
More serious still is how limited the whole Image Mask feature set is for any serious compositing – there are workarounds for a lot of things but there are many situations where you simply can’t create or adjust the matte to the job in hand, it just isn’t designed that way.
Motion is quick and easy (much faster than AE in many basic situations, especially with the real-time playback which has always been a huge strength), but it’s never going to cut it as a heavy-duty compositor up against the big guns. But it was never meant to!
FCPX feels like it’s built with exactly the same philosophy and intended audience – fast and clever for the basic stuff (OK, so you might disagree with that assessment of FCPX but you get the idea!) but showing its limitations for the big stuff that it was never really designed to handle. Both are entirely Apple desgined products (unlike legacy FCP), and it shows … for better and for worse.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Oliver Peters] “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.”
At this point, I would agree with that, even though Apple has said otherwise. And although I know FCP Legacy was used in many feature films and post houses, from within the industry most heavy hitters I know use “The Avid”.
In fact, the lack of Motion integration is one of the only big downsides for me. A simple reconnect feature would do to solve most of my issues. At this point, I jump into Premiere for only two reasons 1) RED footage and 2) Integration with After Effects. I’d prefer to use FCPX, but it’s not quite there… yet.
—————-
FCP Guru
http://www.fcpguru.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “Motion (and even more so Motion 5) is badly lacking in some fundamental pro features – the inability to manipulate/combine/recombine individual RGBA channels is a very big mssing piece. Apple obviously don’t think their users are were ever going to want this and tellingly we have now even lost the basic Channel Swap filter out of Motion 4.”
I thought we discussed this before, Simon. The channel mix filter in Motion 5 does what the channel swap filter did in Motion 4.
Also, can you elaborate on what you said about the image mask? I actually find that to be one of the most powerful features of Motion. In my opinion, if Motion is limited anywhere in compositing, it is in its inability to pre-compose layers.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “Behaviors are a way of giving animation control to folks who don’t want to have to learn about all that fiddly keyframing stuff – but on the other hand they are a great design idea and can be very powerful”
I think that’s a key part. Motion was really developed as a COMPANION to FCP designed for Motion Graphics, not compositing. It was never meant to replace AE (or at least was never publicly positioned that way by Apple). It was intended for editors to use it to create slick graphics and animations without much effort. More as a design tool, rather than a heavy-duty compositor with tons of tweak-ability. It’s a lot like the software equivalent to the presets on old hardware DVEs like a Squeezoom or K-scope.
[Simon Ubsdell] “FCPX feels like it’s built with exactly the same philosophy and intended audience – fast and clever for the basic stuff… but showing its limitations for the big stuff that it was never really designed to handle. “
Completely agree.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Matthew Celia] “the lack of Motion integration is one of the only big downsides for me. A simple reconnect feature would do to solve most of my issues.”
When we see the Q1 update, I think we will have a better idea of what Apple really intended to release. That version will realistically set the tone going forward more so than what we’ve been playing with so far.
[Matthew Celia] “And although I know FCP Legacy was used in many feature films and post houses, from within the industry most heavy hitters I know use “The Avid”.”
And for the most part, those folks have written off FCP X, even though they may have been very happy with FCP 7.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Andy Neil] “I thought we discussed this before, Simon. The channel mix filter in Motion 5 does what the channel swap filter did in Motion 4.”
We have discussed this before but I must have missed your pointing out the Channel Mixer which I have been remiss on not checking out before – it’s a really nice and powerful tool, so I take back that part! Thanks for the pointer.
I’ll try to make my case against the Image Mask feature at some point when I can get my thoughts together, but just in passsing, surely Motion groups can be made to work in almost every practical sense just like precomps in AE?? (Only rather more handily becauswe they’re less hidden away.)
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Oliver Peters] “I think that’s a key part. Motion was really developed as a COMPANION to FCP designed for Motion Graphics, not compositing. It was never meant to replace AE (or at least was never publicly positioned that way by Apple). It was intended for editors to use it to create slick graphics and animations without much effort. More as a design tool, rather than a heavy-duty compositor with tons of tweak-ability.”
Exactly so – but the actual hardcore user-base of Motion (as opposed to the very occasional dabblers) must be pretty small (of course I could be completely wrong but it certainly feels that way). It’s a product that’s never really found its niche despite its obvious advantages for certain types of work – despite its actual and intended simplicity a huge number of people (in my experience alone) find it far too “complex” to get to grips with in any meaningful way. A lot of people simply bypass it altogether – if they’re going to make the effort to learn a graphics package then they’re going to make the big step up to AE, but otherwise they are largely going to stick with what they can do inside FCP legacy (or even these days FCPX).
It very hard to gauge what Apple have ever actually wanted from Motion, if indeed they ever did have a clear idea – a bit like the only other pro-video application that they have ever internally developed, possibly!?
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
The problem is very easy to solve, but very well hidden.
In the timeline, select the item you are animating. Go to the inspector, open up the transform box, and select the rectangle with little dots at each 4 corners (free transform button). When you select that you will see the path that your item is following. If you click on that path ( so in the canvas ), and then right click it, you will see a menu that lets you choose from linear or smooth. Select linear for all the keyframes on that path and your problem is solved.
Cheers!
-
By the way…
This will alter your path so that the motion is linear, and does not curve around your points, but it will NOT affect the easing in and out of the points you set. The speed of the movement will always ease in and out of your keyframes.
Using the add/remove keyframe trick is the only thing I’ve discovered that will keep the movement at a constant speed.
———
Don’t live your life in a secondary storyline.Mark Morache
FCPX/FCP7/Xpri/Avid
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
https://fcpx.wordpress.com -
While this thread has been up for a while, I found the information helpful and it solved my problem. This is one of those little bugs that is so unusual I thought I would put together a little video tutorial to demonstrate the issue and how the “fix” is applied. Here is the link to my blog post about it. https://www.accularian.com/Subjects/Macintosh/final-cut-pro-linear-key-frame-problem/“>Key Frame Wobbly Problem I hope it is helpful to some one else.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up