-
Interesting notes about fcpx plugins
-
Roger, thanks for sharing your thoughts. It’s very interesting to hear a developer’s perspective (instead of our speculation as to what your perspective might be).
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] “Contrast this with After Effects, which generally encourages developers to either keep controls off-screen altogether, or expose any on-screen controls as standard controls in the effects panel. You can see all the controls for all your effects simultaneously in the effects panel, eliminating the need to specifically select an effect before seeing or adjusting its settings.”
Not so true anymore.
Many of the major plug-in packages utilize on-screen controls in After Effects.
Boris Continuum Complete, Sapphire and Tinderbox to name a few.
On-screen controls are used for a number of things like radius, angle and width.
Even threshold, intensity and height parameters benefit from on-screen controls.
Personally – I have a hard time getting used to it. A case of inability to learn to sit I presume.
But whenever I make an effort to use them I find them very intuitive.
Then again, that’s in After Effects and maybe not so relevant to this discussion.Regards
.-daniel -
[Walter Soyka] “Contrast this with After Effects, which generally encourages developers to either keep controls off-screen altogether, or expose any on-screen controls as standard controls in the effects panel.”
[Daniel Annefelt] “Not so true anymore. Many of the major plug-in packages utilize on-screen controls in After Effects. Boris Continuum Complete, Sapphire and Tinderbox to name a few.”
Yes — but as I mentioned, those OSCs are duplicated with standard effects controls. Look at S_Blur, for example. You can adjust the overall blur amount and relative X and Y blur visually with the OSCs, or you can adjust them parametrically in the effects panel.
With this design, on-screen controls complement the standard host controls. With FCPX’s design, they replace them entirely.
S_Blur is an example where the OSC is relatively unobtrusive. Imagine Colorista II on FCPX with an OSC instead of custom controls in the effects tab.
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] “Yes — but as I mentioned, those OSCs are duplicated with standard effects controls. Look at S_Blur, for example. You can adjust the overall blur amount and relative X and Y blur visually with the OSCs, or you can adjust them parametrically in the effects panel.
With this design, on-screen controls complement the standard host controls. With FCPX’s design, they replace them entirely.”That I didn’t know!
(Can’t run FCX at work so I should a checked at home before I posted – sorry about that.)
My After Effects gut reaction says that it’s unacceptable. Every OSC must be reflected in numerical values.
I understand the ordeal for the plug-in developers.regards
.-daniel -
[Walter Soyka] “Look at S_Blur, for example. You can adjust the overall blur amount and relative X and Y blur visually with the OSCs, or you can adjust them parametrically in the effects panel…With this design, on-screen controls complement the standard host controls. With FCPX’s design, they replace them entirely.”
Come now. That’s not true. OSCs already compliment (not replace) a host of effects that exist standard in FCPX as well as effects that I’ve created myself. In the case of something like S_blur, you could do the EXACT same thing with an OSC to adjust blur and a reflective parameter in the effects panel.
The issue is “custom” UI elements. The fact is, the majority of plug-in effects can be handled by the standard UI elements in Motion (check box, slider, rotation, drop down menu). The real issue are with plug in manufacturers who NEED a custom UI to make it work intuitively like Colorista (who needs a color wheel), or someone else who needs a curve editor or something similar.
I’m in favor of a HUD control for those types of plug-ins vs OCS. I think that would be the most elegant solution (I can’t imagine three color wheels in the space the inspector allows anyway). That way, Apple has control over the aesthetics of it’s inspector UI, but users get all the controls they need in ADDITION to inspector parameters.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Andy Neil] “Come now. That’s not true. OSCs already compliment (not replace) a host of effects that exist standard in FCPX as well as effects that I’ve created myself. In the case of something like S_blur, you could do the EXACT same thing with an OSC to adjust blur and a reflective parameter in the effects panel.”
Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly and I’m sorry that I was so dreadfully unclear in my post! I didn’t mean to suggest that S_Blur couldn’t (very easily) be duplicated in FCPX. I am not saying that standard controls cannot be placed in the effects tab. I thought the context of custom UI elements was clear from my previous post, but re-reading my post, that doesn’t come across well.
What I meant to say was this:
With other host apps’ designs, on-screen controls can complement the effects controls for both standard and custom UI elements. With FCPX’s design, they complement standard controls, but must replace them entirely for custom UI elements.
I’m trying to lay out my case for all controls in the effects tab, as opposed to only the controls for the currently selected effect as an on-screen control. The OSC is fine for very simple effects work, but it will fall apart quickly for more involved stacks of effects.
[Andy Neil] “The issue is “custom” UI elements. The fact is, the majority of plug-in effects can be handled by the standard UI elements in Motion (check box, slider, rotation, drop down menu). The real issue are with plug in manufacturers who NEED a custom UI to make it work intuitively like Colorista (who needs a color wheel), or someone else who needs a curve editor or something similar.”
But here, without custom UI elements in the effects tab, what do you do as a developer if you do need a custom UI element? Do you split your controls (custom elements on OSCs, standard elements in the tab), duplicate the standard controls in both the tab and the OSC, or build a controller app like Looks?
This is a needless limitation in the FCPX that forces developers into workarounds and denies users the advantage of the consistent look and feel that most other host apps provide.
[Andy Neil] “I’m in favor of a HUD control for those types of plug-ins vs OCS. I think that would be the most elegant solution (I can’t imagine three color wheels in the space the inspector allows anyway). That way, Apple has control over the aesthetics of it’s inspector UI, but users get all the controls they need in ADDITION to inspector parameters.”
I don’t particularly care if Apple has control of the aesthetics of its inspector UI. I want control over my effects, and if that means custom controls or allowing me to resize the effects tab, why not? As it stands, the effects tab shows bad design. The form does not support the function.
Like I was discussing with Jeremy, it seems that floating HUDs may be the way FCPX does it, which I think may pose its own challenges — but why prioritize Apple’s aesthetic for the effects tab than have a more flexible workspace, that supported custom UI elements or resizing?
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] “I don’t particularly care if Apple has control of the aesthetics of its inspector UI. I want control over my effects…why prioritize Apple’s aesthetic for the effects tab than have a more flexible workspace, that supported custom UI elements or resizing?”
I know you don’t care, and truth is, neither do I really. But I do UNDERSTAND it. AE is a perfect example. The effects UI has room for sliders, checkboxes, curve editors and such. And on complicated effects, it’s a mess. On top of all that, there are custom editor buttons that open a completely separate UI for that particular effect.
Aesthetics have always mattered a great deal to Apple. They have always come from a position where the experience of using a product is as important (or nearly so) to what you are using it for. They may be restricting developers to prevent FCPX’s user experience from becoming muddled. Or maybe not. Maybe custom UI elements will be allowed in the future, or maybe Apple will come up with a third solution (like a HUD).
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
Roger-
Thanks so much for writing back. It’s nice to hear what’s going on out there.
Jeremy
-
Cheers, and thanks for the thoughtful responses, Andy.
I recognize that all this may not be big deal for the vast majority of users. A brief diversion on my perspective here:
Pre-launch, I was tremendously excited about the prospect of real effects in FCPX. Floating point processing, color management, and linear compositing, all right there in the NLE! I thought this was going to be a great tool for me and my work.
Now, I am disappointed that Apple has limited the usefulness of the effects engine and wrapped third-party effects developers in straightjackets. To use a terrible car analogy (which will immediately fall to its first critique), they’ve got an 800 HP engine. Even if they swap out their street tires for racing slicks, they still have to upgrade the transmission before they can get that power to the pavement.
[Andy Neil] “I know you don’t care, and truth is, neither do I really. But I do UNDERSTAND it.”
Just because I disagree with it doesn’t mean I don’t understand it. I just hate to see FCPX sacrifice power or control to gain simplicity.
Unfortunately, in what seems to be an effort to make easy things easier, FCPX is also making hard things harder. Beginning users get a small win, advanced users take a big loss, and developers weren’t even invited to the game.
[Andy Neil] “AE is a perfect example. The effects UI has room for sliders, checkboxes, curve editors and such. And on complicated effects, it’s a mess.”
It’s not necessarily a mess: a well-designed effect will allow you to twirl open and closed the sections of controls you need. AE can also show only modified properties for a layer directly on the timeline, reducing a complicated effect to only the elements you’re actively changing with two keystrokes.
Sometimes, all those controls are just necessary. Although I usually prefer to work in context, I can understand how others would more often prefer the application to show a tighter focus. AE lets you do this (by twirling sections or whole effects open or closed, or by resizing panels as necessary).
[Andy Neil] “On top of all that, there are custom editor buttons that open a completely separate UI for that particular effect.”
Those separate interfaces are similarly almost always workarounds to bypass limitations of the AE SDK. I’d love to see those limitations removed, too.
[Andy Neil] “Aesthetics have always mattered a great deal to Apple. They have always come from a position where the experience of using a product is as important (or nearly so) to what you are using it for. They may be restricting developers to prevent FCPX’s user experience from becoming muddled. Or maybe not. Maybe custom UI elements will be allowed in the future, or maybe Apple will come up with a third solution (like a HUD).”
Indeed! FCPX is a departure from FCP Classic in this regard. Craig Seeman rightly points out that FCP was purchased and did not reflect the Apple aesthetic. Now we are seeing it with FCPX.
That brings us back to the old question: will Apple’s “you don’t know what you want until we show you” strategy (which works so well in the consumer space) also work in the professional space?
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] “That brings us back to the old question: will Apple’s “you don’t know what you want until we show you” strategy (which works so well in the consumer space) also work in the professional space?”
It has thus far, but it’s a new world out there.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up