-
Interesting notes about fcpx plugins
-
Oliver,
I sure you will correct me with you superior technical savvy but surely when you launch the application ( as shown in the video demo) it launches a separate window within which the app resides.
So it’s as if it is, probably through using xml, sending the clip to its own application and then publishing it back to FCPX.
The demo clearly shows a colour wheel ( at 01.42) which it appears can be adjusted either with the mouse or sliders.
Either way i’m really looking forward to its release and feel sorry that RGS have had such an uphill struggle to port their software over to FCPX. Seems like they are very nearly there.
-
[Mark Dobson] “I sure you will correct me with you superior technical savvy but surely when you launch the application ( as shown in the video demo) it launches a separate window within which the app resides.”
You are right Mark, but that window allows to work on “one frame”.
The problem I guess Oliver points is that with plugins like Colorista need “live video” on that window.
You need to be able to set key-frames.
MBlooks do not have key-frames.
Colorista needs them.
rafael -
Ah – I get it now
more haste less speed.
-
Thanks for posting this link, Jeremy.
[Jeremy Garchow] “That’s what I took from it as well, the custom UI for plugins might be available, yet.”
Aharon specifically mentions in the video that the FCPX effects UI doesn’t allow for custom UI elements.
Bouncing out to separate apps for every third-party effect is, in my opinion, a big drag on productivity. As a user, I prefer having effects controls in context within the host whenever possible. I know it’s not always feasible to stay entirely in the host (and Looks is the perfect example of an effect that really works better in its own interface), but can you imagine if every major effect had its own separate interface in its own separate control application?
That said, the overlay is a really cool idea. Is this a feature built in the FCPX effect system? If you stack multiple effects which all use overlays, do they automatically re-arrange themselves?
Another interesting thing in this video — a developer being totally open with the their user base about what’s going on with an upcoming product. My thanks to the folks at Red Giant for the update.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “but can you imagine if every major effect had its own separate interface in its own separate control application?”
Yeah, not ideal, but I’d rather have it than not have anything. I don’t know, this feels like it’s one of those areas of FCPX where it’s simply not finished/ready. Maybe it will rely on a further version of FCPXML, or perhaps it rely on motion more so than FCPX. I don’t know. Apple’s own plugs have custom UI (look at the keyer) so it must be possible, just not public at this point?
Maybe we can get some control like the audio units:
https://library.creativecow.net/articles/garchow_jeremy/FCPX-Ask/assets/10_AudioFilters.jpg
Different beast, altogether, I’m sure.
[Walter Soyka] “Another interesting thing in this video — a developer being totally open with the their user base about what’s going on with an upcoming product. My thanks to the folks at Red Giant for the update.”
Yes, it’s very refreshing and positive.
-
There’s also the possibility that Motion 5’s rigging and publishing capabilities will be increased over time. No custom UIs are available in FCPX’s inspector, but perhaps new controls will be added that clever plug-in manufactures can make good use out of.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Walter Soyka] “can you imagine if every major effect had its own separate interface in its own separate control application”
Walter, re: separate interfaces
I can do more than imagine distinct interfaces for effects – whenever I open up a DAW and use effects.
In fact, I thought FCPX uses the Logic plug-ins – are they stripped of their interface or more standardized than I’m familiar with? (I haven’t used Logic).
Not sure what you mean by “seperate control application” though.
Franz.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I can do more than imagine distinct interfaces for effects – whenever I open up a DAW and use effects.”
My issue with separate interfaces (briefly summarized): you cannot easily make in-context adjustments to interrelated effects in a stack. You must step in and out of each effect’s separate interface. Perhaps separate, non-modal, floating panels will solve this (although it doesn’t strike me as the FCPX way and presents interface challenges of its own).
Secondly, if you cannot add a custom UI element within the host application and you are encouraged to write a separate controller app (as RGS has done with Looks), you would also want to include all your effects controls in your controller app. Since every developer will approach this same problem a little bit differently, you’ll hurt interface uniformity. Everyone will have sliders, for example, but they’ll look and feel a little different.
I agree with Jeremy that it is better to have the workaround than it is not to have these effects at all, but I also think the FCP7 way of allowing custom UI elements within the host application was better still.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “Perhaps separate, non-modal, floating panels will solve this (although it doesn’t strike me as the FCPX way and presents interface challenges of its own).”
While I agree with you, it’s how the audio filters work today in FCPX. So it seems, the floating window idea is already somewhat in the application today.
-
[Andy Neil] “There’s also the possibility that Motion 5’s rigging and publishing capabilities will be increased over time. No custom UIs are available in FCPX’s inspector, but perhaps new controls will be added that clever plug-in manufactures can make good use out of.”
Conjecture warning. I have no idea what’s going on with Apple’s third-party developer outreach, but since this is the debate forum, I’ll speculate anyway.
There are two things I’m afraid of happening:
- FCPX effects interface is left largely untouched, forcing more developers to push their users out of the host app as RGS has had to do with Looks
- FCPX effects interface is overhauled (possibly repeatedly), forcing developers to start over every time Apple decides to change something
I liked Bill Davis’s “plumbing” analogy from a few weeks ago. He suggested that Apple’s developers were focused on FCPX’s infrastructure first and would be leveraging that infrastructure for new features going forward. (I agreed this would have been a reasonable path for development, but disagreed that we’ve seen evidence that this is what they have done.)
I would have thought that something like a comprehensive effects API — including custom UI element support so that third-party developers could do their job and add functionality and control that Apple hadn’t already thought of themselves — would have been an important piece of plumbing to have in place before launch.
With that said, I’d like to call some more attention to one of the features I like best about FCPX, which you wrote about in this post: Motion/FCPX integration. This is brilliantly done, and as a designer, I’m excited about possibly using this to deliver customized motion elements to any of my editorial clients who choose to move forward with FCPX.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up