-
Is FCPX development slower than you’d like?
-
Ya’ll both rock.
-
[Bret Williams] “I thought Jeremy was referring to Szymon. “
I wasn’t although motionVFX makes good stuff, too.
I was referring to Mr Ubsdell. I am having a good time with the truly useful plugs.
This page, and then scroll down to Hawaiki, and Tokyo.
Also, 20% off right now, just sayin’
https://fxfactory.com/products/
Jeremy
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I wasn’t although motionVFX makes good stuff, too.”
I’d second that absolutely – I have huge respect for the quality of what they put out, and not a little envy at how good it is sometimes 😉 Lots of clever, hard-working and talented folks on that team, for sure.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I was referring to Mr Ubsdell. I am having a good time with the truly useful plugs.”
Thank you very much 🙂
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Michael Phillips] “Do you think that Motion becomes part of FCPx at some point, and one might think (hope) that the lack of standalone development is about integration development?”
Building a custom effect in Motion for use in FCP X later, does make Motion a part of FCP X in that regard. I have always felt that the two should be separate applications, trying to go with a one size fits all approach does not always work.
[Michael Phillips] “On a similar note, you just have to think that Blackmagic will be integrating Eyeon Fusion into Resolve at some point in the future, and Fusion has some great graphics functionality – not to mention compositing, etc.”
I think the two applications should be separate. Not everyone will need to do high-end compositing. This could make for a more complex interface and likely introduce more bugs to troubleshoot, just my two cents.
-
[Bret Williams] “I have watched some of your tuts. One was way over my head. The one about green screen in motion by subtracting this channel from that…. way above my pay grade.”
Don’t be discouraged by that one – it was a bit on the advanced side, I’d readily admit.
But there have been quite a few since that are much easier to get to grips with and are quite fun to do. This recent one, despite looking at some pretty unusual techniques, has proved particularly popular:
Since all my tutorials are project-based (rather than dealing with just a specific tool or technique), there are usually quite a few extra hints and tips that emerge along the way that can be useful to discover – I think.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.comSome contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
[David Mathis] “I think the two applications should be separate. Not everyone will need to do high-end compositing. This could make for a more complex interface and likely introduce more bugs to troubleshoot”
Couldn’t agree more. Which is also the reason they will never integrate more than they already have (in the sense “all-in-one”), which is actually quite considerable already. They’ll certainly integrate more, just on their own and stay separate. Fortunately.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
Over the last few years I have used X on a few projects that fit and it performed well – stability issues aside – in limited circumstances. But just the way command Z selectively performs is enough to keep me from ever thinking of using it in any sort of long form situation. If Apple is really headed somewhere good with this then I will follow. But I don’t see it happening. They just don’t seem to be looking to address complex workflows. And they also seem to making a small fortune not doing so.
Tim
-
[TImothy Auld] “And they also seem to making a small fortune not doing so.”
Ironically, they’re obviously making it from people that in fact see that they’re headed somewhere more than just good. Somewhere that others are apparently not willing or able to follow. Oh well. Go figure. But I guess we’ll just take your word for it. ;-D
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[David Mathis] “I think the two applications [Resolve and Fusion] should be separate. Not everyone will need to do high-end compositing. This could make for a more complex interface and likely introduce more bugs to troubleshoot, just my two cents.”
This is a totally valid point of view, but I might characterize it as somewhat traditional.
I think there’s enormous creative value in the convergence of color and compositing, and I think that working in editorial context for both is of increasing importance.
(In fact, I might go so far as to argue that color is a specialized subset of compositing from a technical if not artistic standpoint, but that could be a conversation for another time.)
NUKE STUDIO might provide a model for a way to incorporate Fusion into Resolve while minimizing interface complexity for those who aren’t interested in its feature set.
Going forward, I think separate apps will work best if the developer can move all the apps onto a shared data structure: one editorial timeline as the hub to which contributions may be made in context by the specialist spoke applications. Eliminating the concept of interchange as we know it now, making it totally invisible and seamless within a suite, and enabling non-linear collaboration would be a great next step for improving post workflows.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
As well you should.
Tim
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up