Motion 4, multi-core rendering and studio intergration

[Alan Okey]

[Erik Lindahl] “Never the less, I came to ask my self, why doesn’t all the applications of this package share filters and effects between them selves? Why do they have the Core Image, Core Video, FxPlug and Audio Units technology and architecture and don’t use it full out as they could and should? This would potentially be a true “killer” feature of the package but for a reason beyond me they aren’t doing this. “

I think I love you…

This is my number one beef with Final Cut Studio. I’ve posted several rants on this already. It’s beyond me why Apple can’t make Final Cut Studio a smoothly integrated collection of tools instead of a poorly patched together collection of separate applications with separate development paths. Two or three version ago, I could understand – the products were new. But today? it seems like they’re much more interested in adding new bullet points to their marketing brochures by adding new features instead of focusing on seamless integration between applications and standardizing tools and options.

I suspect that the main reason for this is that Apple rarely develops their own Pro Apps from the ground up, they buy out technologies from other companies and make them appear “Apple-like” on the surface. They aren’t rewriting code from the ground up, they’re taking something made by someone else and rebranding it.

The irony of this is that Apple’s consumer apps (iLife) end up being much better integrated and standardized froma UI perspective than their Pro apps. Pro users really get the shaft from Apple on a number of different fronts: greater time between new releases and bug fixes, poorer integration of apps, greater inconsistency in user interfaces and tools, etc.

Let’s face it – the main reason Apple made such a splash with Final Cut Pro was price. Avid makes great tools, but they insist on tying the customer to their own hardware dongles and artificially stratifying their product line by video format. There’s no software-only HD product in Avid’s lineup. Changing formats in the Avid world means upgrading to a new product line. This worked for many years, but Final Cut Pro came along and upset the apple cart (so to speak) by offering much greater scalability and fewer artificial limitations to working worth different formats. The only hardware dongle required for Final Cut Pro is a Mac, which underscores the fundamental difference between Avid and Apple: Apple is a hardware company. Apple sells FCS at a low enough price to attract pro PC users to jump ship and buy a Mac. Apple writes great software for consumers, but they don’t write great software for Pro users. They buy it from someone else and tweak it. The result is great value in pricing but poor integration between applications and a fundamental lack of understanding about developing software for pro users.

I don’t ever see this changing at Apple. If Apple were really serious about pro users, they would need to untether the Pro Apps division from the consumer division and give them the resources to develop new applications from scratch. They would also have to change their attitude regarding how they deal with customers. They would need to free the developers up to do extensive research by interacting with the pro user community, not just a select group of beta testers. This approach is counter to Apple’s insistence on secrecy, which insulates them from customer feedback. This behavior is the polar opposite of what pro users desire and expect from software developers. Pro users want to feel like their opinions matter, and that the developer is really listening to their complaints/suggestions and acting accordingly. This is not the way Apple is used to working. The way that Apple releases new versions of their products every few years is a bit like Moses coming down from the mountain and handing out the new version of the Ten Commandments. It’s not a give-and-take process, it’s very authoritarian – My Way or the Highway. This may seem unfair to some well-intentioned developers in the Pro Apps division, but it’s the public face of Apple that many pro users despise. To be fair, there are companies who are far worse than Apple in this regard (like Autodesk, a software company, no less!), but Apple could go a long way toward improving its relationship with its pro customers.

[Erik Lindahl]

Well I mean Apple does do good things, not question about that, I just wonder sometimes about their focus and “how they think” about things sometimes. With the advent of Motion and Sound Track Pro (two from the ground built applications by Apple I beilive), Final Cut Pro seems to have trailed a bit behind. My “hope” a few years back was these applications would gain and share technology from one another byt evidently this hasn’t happened.

With Motion and Sound Track Pro the hardware footprint was raised ALOT given the apps also did a lot we might not have thought of doing in real-time before (STP vs Logic was however very questionable, but that’s a different story all together). Never the less, I figured Apple wouldn’t dare push FCP into this area seeing it had a very well established user group and making it require the best of the best in hardware to even run would kill the product for many people.

Still, now they made the moved to the “intel only” area which isn’t a huge surprise but the evolution has been quite modest to make this move in my opinion. What surprises me more is Apple them selves develop all the technology these applications run on and still they suffer the same issues most apps / environments do. The whole “intel” transition surprises me a bit as well since Apple has the power to control both hardware and software yet some of the early intel systems where crippled at birth with a built in GPU (I think the original MacBook was 4 times faster on CPU compilations but somewhat slower on GPU operations than it’s iBook predecessor).

Now with Snow Leopard, OpenCL and all the other modern technologies it brings… The whole thing feel a bit un-thought out…

– The MacOSX Dev Team in April 2005 brings us features like Spot Light
– The MacOSX Dev Team in October 2007 brings us features like QuickLook and iChat Theatre
– Final Cut Studio Dev Team in July 2009 embrace the above technologies more or less

Also, just looking internally into the studio package Motion and Final Cut still don’t even share filters and effects or “base” abilities such as slow-motion and time-remapping. Back in the day when DVD production was “hot” I asked an Apple rep why QuickTime had such a SHOCKING MPEG2 playback support where DVD Studio and the DVD Player where amazing at it. Share resources and solve the problems. The comment was “licensing issues”, well apparently those where solved by open source projects like VLC which I now use to review copies to go on air… Using Audio-filters in Final Cut Pro is simply a joke in version 6 (might be better in 7 but I haven’t tested things there yet). And before people go “but I you tried it on AVID?” I really don’t give a rats arse if AVID sucks cause I want my preferred editing environment to be the best it can be and that is Final Cut Pro. And Apple has proven they CAN solve problems I have today but they just don’t go the full mile.

But yeah, I might be hoping for too much. It’s like when I asked a DVD Studio Pro rep at IBC 2006 I think it was why they couldn’t develop a QuickTime review and interactive feature for DVD productions (i.e. you export a QT movie from DVDSP with all the menu’s and media and place on a server where you either just view the production or you can make notes and send them back to the editor / producer). “Awesome idéa, but who would develop that?”. One of the QuickTime guys was there also and I just shook my head and said “well you both work for the same company, talk to one-another”. Funny thing is Adobe has added a similar feature like this to Encore recently…

Drifting a bit off topic yet still not – has Final Cut Studio 3 become better on the integration and system usage area, those are my main questions and perhaps Snow Leopard will give us a surprise here.

Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
————————

[David Bogie]

This is as fine a place to rant as any.
Most of us have been registering our complaints about and suggestions for FCP for many years. There is the feedback section of apple.com where you can drop your suggestions.
The problem with all of these discussions is that we don’t know (or, to be blunt, I cannot even freakin’ IMAGINE) how or why Apple’s FCS team makes their decisions. Some has to be legacy code that simply cannot be rewritten. Some must lie in management decisions that simply do not consider we the users. But these threads always help me understand one thing: many requests and demands are too narrowly focused; one guy’s absolute must-haves are another’s nonsensical wastes of resources.

I didn’t want any more features in FCP7, not a single one. I did not’ want anything new in Motion, least of all lights and shadows, and I don’t care what happens to DVDSP, Color, Cinema Tools, or STP. All I wanted was everything that was broken to get fixed and every broken promise to be finally met.

Still we buy, we install, we kvetch.

bogiesan

[Matt Callac]

[david bogie] “All I wanted was everything that was broken to get fixed and every broken promise to be finally met.”

AMEN.

[Erik Lindahl]

All I wanted was everything that was broken to get fixed and every broken promise to be finally met.
Exactly what I’m primarily interested in. It’s all nice with new features but even now, at version 3 of Motion, I don’t trust the application. It’s erratic and / or slow behaviour is a huge problem for me to take the application serious (hence why I wonder when Next-gen Shake will come out – After Effects deals with animation / compositing very well yet Shake is a true compositor).

I’m not asking for them to re-invent the wheel either…  The MacOSX dev-team is really getting things right at the moment given MacOSX isn’t perfect, they move now in a very good line with Snow Leopard – refining, fixing and optimizing while stil giving a few hints of innovation.

Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Communication
————————

[Ville Pirilä]

Hey all !!

First of all, let me say that I’ve been reading huge amounts of different topics surrounding FCS 2 and the FCS(2009), as I have just received it and getting into it. I really appreciate all the expert advice and tips in this forum, they have been and will be a huge asset for me.

Just a few words more…

I got into the “MacBook” world a year ago and immediately bought FCE 4, as I have been always interested of movies, editing and stuff related since I was a small boy.My experience of editing before was with 2 VCR’s (beta&VHS) and putting a video together of Jari Kurri’s (Edmonton Oilers) best goals and moments in the NHL and adding music with the Audio Dub from a CD player. Then there was a “break” and some playing around with Windows Movie Maker, version 2 I believe.Then a break again for many years and now FCE for a year and now getting into FCS(2009). I have ingested every tutorial available out there(Ripple Training,LYNDA etc etc…)

I just can’t wait to get into FCS(2009)….The possibilities, the price, the same stuff as Coen Brothers,Walter Murch and several others use….

Then I read the various topics here of different applications within FCS and almost all, at least a major part, of the messages seem to state that a lot of things are wrong with FCS and blaahblaahblaah…I understand, respect and honor the fact that most of you respected gentleman are professionals and make your living out of editing and related issues, so I read all your messages with great care and somehow I am starting to wonder is it even worth purchasing…(I will, don’t worry…)

Sorry for the long “introduction”, but my question is the following:

Imagine your world (and profession) without the Final Cut suites and solutions and place yourselves in a world without any of the Apple prosuites,FCS,Shake etc.

Would you like that world?

best regards,

Ville Pirilä
Finland

MacBook Pro 15,4″ 2,8 Ghz, 4Gb RAM (2009 June model)
FCE
Final Cut Studio (2009)
Canon Legria HV40 videocamera (HDV)

[Hector Berrebi]

[Ville Pirilä] “Hey all !!
First of all, let me say that I’ve been reading…”

hi Ville

nice post 🙂

don’t feel confused.. or boggled at the whining complaints and disappointments you read about…

if Final cut studio wasn’t a great set of tools, no one would give a rat’s ass

we complain because we grew our expectations (which you do only towards things you care about) and because we’re post geeks who believe we could each re-write the world of non-linear editing into a smooth, efficient, affordable, utopia.

all editing software have problems… the better ones have thousands of users to complain about these problems and make it all look much worst than it actually is

if you are starting your way in this industry, and have the budget to afford it, Final cut studio is in my opinion the best way to go

as un-perfect as it may be…

Hector Berrebi
Schibber Group
prePost Consulting

[Alan Okey]

[Ville Pirilä] “Imagine your world (and profession) without the Final Cut suites and solutions and place yourselves in a world without any of the Apple prosuites,FCS,Shake etc.

Would you like that world? “

I would get along just fine in that world. Professionals had a choice of tools before Apple deigned to become involved in pro video, and if Apple dropped dead tomorrow there would still be other companies providing tools. I wouldn’t give Apple too much credit here – their primary motivation is to sell more Macs.

This isn’t an “I hate Apple” rant. I think Apple is an amazing company that makes some fantastic products. Their OS is outstanding, and their consumer technology is second to none. I don’t think that they are as strong in serving pro users, nor as committed to them. I acknowledge that Apple has drastically lowered the price of entry for professional video software, something that benefits everyone. However, I feel that they still have along way to go toward better serving the pro market. I question their commitment to doing that.

Apple had no experience in high end compositing before buying Shake. The first thing they did was to kill support for other platforms. It’s not hard to see what Apple’s real agenda is for selling Pro Apps. They want to sell more Macs, and I can imagine that the profit margin on Mac Pros is pretty sweet.

The Pro Apps that Apple has written itself and not bought from other companies (Motion, for example) are fairly lackluster when compared to tools from companies who have been making pro apps for years. I don’t think Apple really caters to video professionals, nor do they ultimately care to. From a developer’s perspective, pro customers are a pain in the ass. They expect regular updates, regular bug fixes, responsive tech support and personal service. Apple is a huge company geared toward making great consumer level technology. The pro market is too small of a niche for them to take very seriously. Apple cares just enough about pro users to sell more Macs, make headlines in media publications and issue press releases that drop a lot of media pro celebrity names.

I believe that Apple’s main focus is in bringing multimedia creation technology to the widest cross section of users, not merely catering to a small niche of professionals. It was quite telling to see Randy Ubillos, father of Adobe Premiere and chief development architect for Final Cut Pro get up and excitedly demonstrate the new iMovie at the last MacWorld Expo. This is where Apple’s heart truly lies.

If I didn’t have Final Cut Studio, I could simply find other tools to replace it. I started out using Adobe Premiere back in the 90s, and clients were happy enough with my results to pay me for my services and recommend my skills to others. If Final Cut Pro hadn’t come along when it did, I imagine I would have gone on to use Avid products.

As for compositing, Apple bought Shake, an old industry workhorse, years after it had become entrenched in the compositing world. Since Apple bought it, most effects houses have moved away from it to newer tools that are being actively developed by companies with much greater knowledge of the compositing/VFX market – products like Nuke, Fusion, Combustion, Toxik, etc. I really don’t think any pro compositors are expecting Apple to produce anything that will compete with any of the products I mentioned. Apple just doesn’t develop and sell $3000 apps. Motion doesn’t compete with After Effects, let alone high end compositing apps. I’m not waiting breathlessly for “Phenomenon,” the rumored next-generation compositing app from Apple that will replace Shake. My opinion is that Apple isn’t interested in anything above the prosumer level market. Apple is more likely to come out with iComposite than a real competitor to high end compositing apps that already exist.

To get back to your question, I really believe that in the end, it’s talent that differentiates the artist, not what tools they use.

[Eric Meek]

Im really not trying to be a jerk here so please dont take it as such. This post is not an insult but I do have a few thoughts I’d like to get out about the above post by Alen Okey.

For one, even if you claim to use Apple products I still get the feeling from you that you harbor ill will toward apple and its fanatical users. It sounds like it bothers you when people say good things about FCP because of your disgust for Apple in general.

FCP has problems, all editing apps do. But if it didnt have less problems and quirks than Adobe premiere or AVID people wouldnt use it. FCP is popular not only because of price but for VALUE. Cost and value are two very different things and the value of FCS is amazing. Even with all its quirks and bugs. I guarantee AVID and Premiere have as many , if not more bugs, than FCS.

You say you would get along just fine without FCS products. Well of course you would, just like we would get along if indoor bathrooms disappeared and returned to out houses. We would be just fine. things would suck, be slow, cumbersome and not as easy but we would make it just fine. Same goes for
FCP, you would make it and you would adjust. But I keep asking myself, why you use FCS? If your life would be just as easy without it why not use something else? It kills me to hear people say apple needs to do this and this and they are only 999 for the suite. You wanna talk about what AVID neds to include for 2500? Or how about adobe charging 999 for a stand alone premiere? Wanna talk about how THAT a rip off? FCP has no more or less problems than any other NLE out there. People easily forget about the savior of all codecs, apple pro res 422.

So while I understand people need to rant and complain for the squeaky wheel gets the grease but the above post just gives me the feeling of apple resentment.

You really are wrong on a lot of things. You say apple didnt know anything about high end compositing? They didnt have to because they hired ROn Brinkman, developer of shake and Nuke. They had the father of compositing IN HOUSE. They didnt need to. Kill support for other platforms? You can still buy shake for Linux and you can buy the SOURCE CODE. So now studios can update, modify and write plugs in on a proprietary bases for the studio. THEY OWN TEH SOURCE CODE. The studios will never leave shake because they can just update the code as they see fit. Add what they see fir etc. Shake isnt going anywhere for awhile.To say things like apple dont innovate they just buy other companies is so wrong. Motion 4 dan soundtrack were built from the ground up as well as compressor blah blah blah. When someone’s mentions this you say Motion isnt that good blah blah.

Saying apple is only selling pro apps so they can sell macs is like saying Adobe only sell Premiere to sell software. Of course they want to sell macs. WHy is FCS so cheap? Thats why. IF it was pc ready it would cost 225000 dollars. Trust me. Just look at shake. For osx it 500, but for linux its 5000 meaning its cheaper to get a new mac with shake than shake for linux.

“The Pro Apps that Apple has written itself and not bought from other companies (Motion, for example) are fairly lackluster when compared to tools from companies who have been making pro apps for years.” this statement really burns me up. Motion/ soundtrack etc is anything but lackluster. Motion has changed the game and soundtrack is so powerful is crazy. To call either of these apps lackluster

Are you kidding me? If you cant realize how good motion is and what its bringing to the table than i know its just pure apple contempt on your part. Motion has changed the industry.

You say apple dont care, its only a small niche? Are you crazy? Its a huge market. TV, Broadcasts, Hollywood, Independent film makers. All is ripe for the taking. Its far from a niche when you have 1 million users of a product.

You say if you didnt have FCS you would SIMPLY use other things. LOLOL. SIMPLY? you my friend take FCS for granted as a fool would. Apple pro ress, compressor, working natively with QT files, unlike AVID. Premiere UI is horrible. Bottom line. If it was”EASY” to use something else than do it. But you dont do you? You keep using FCS and why? Its the best. Either that or you cant afford any other. FCS took the market on merit not bad business practice like windows did by putting windows on every pc form the store not letting people source there own os. FCS got where it is by pure greatness. You think this many people use FCP because its bad.

Ill admit it has problems and could use fixing in a lot of ways and apple could get more focused on the direction by unifying the apps or giving us a true compositing/keying alternative but with apps like shake for sale and Nuke apple figures Motion will stay a motion graphics app, not a compositing app. Apple doesnt claim to be targeting the 100,000 dollar AVID users or the Inferno/smoke. flame users. Thats completely top end. Apple is going for the group of people that work on a film before it gets to the Flint/Flame or Nuke Station or 100,0000 dollar avid for finalizing/color correction and compositing.

And on a side not, i notice in your post you never mention the addition of Color to FCS? Color IS HUGE. Its one of the most professional color correcting apps out. And yes it for real. It was 25,000 dollars before apple bought it. Color is a powerful correcting tool just as strong any software based color app.. The addition of Color to FCS just tells you that Apple is committed. I think you just spite apple to much to notice.

Motion is not as good a compositor as AE no, but I can argue its a lot better than AER at a lot of things as AE is better than Motion at a lot. As far as a quick visualization motion cant be beat. Real time playback in front of a client is priceless. You dont seem to get that. Its not trying to be shake. THEY HAVE SHAKE FOR THAT. And they do sell 3000 dollar apps. Shake for linux is 5000. Bottom line, i think your sorely mistaking the purpose of motion. Comparing it to shake and nuke or even suggest wrong its a replacement is way off. Its not meant to be. Its a post production suite, thats all. A jack of all trades but master of none. They are specialty apps for that. Motion or AE doesnt track as good as Mocha but no one is saying Adobe or apple just dont care, if they would they would include a planer tracker. That is just screwed logic.

[Alan Okey]

[Eric Meek] “Im really not trying to be a jerk here so please dont take it as such. This post is not an insult but I do have a few thoughts I’d like to get out about the above post by Alen Okey. “

Eric, your thoughts and opinions are welcome in this forum. I try not to take disagreements personally, as long as they don’t devolve into personal attacks. Please note that if you want to respond to me by name, I would appreciate it if you spelled my name correctly.

[Eric Meek] “For one, even if you claim to use Apple products I still get the feeling from you that you harbor ill will toward apple and its fanatical users. It sounds like it bothers you when people say good things about FCP because of your disgust for Apple in general.
“

Eric, nothing could be further from the truth. I adore Apple products in general. I love my Mac Pro and my iPhone is a technological marvel. OS X is fantastic, and only getting better. I’m not disgusted by Apple’s products, but I do have some issues with Apple’s behavior as a company at times.

[Eric Meek] “Even with all its quirks and bugs. I guarantee AVID and Premiere have as many , if not more bugs, than FCS. “

I never made any claims to the contrary. I just wish Apple wold concentrate more on polishing the tools that it has instead of focusing so much on adding new features.

[Eric Meek] “But I keep asking myself, why you use FCS? If your life would be just as easy without it why not use something else?”

Because FCP/FCS is currently the best option. Since I like the tools so much overall, I am that much more passionate about Apple making genuine improvements and not ignoring ongoing issues.

[Eric Meek] “You really are wrong on a lot of things. You say apple didnt know anything about high end compositing? They didnt have to because they hired ROn Brinkman, developer of shake and Nuke. They had the father of compositing IN HOUSE.”

That’s nice to know, but in my opinion Apple has not released any new products to date that really reflects the depth of his expertise. Having great R&D and expertise isn’t worth much if it never translates into great new products.

[Eric Meek] “Motion has changed the game and soundtrack is so powerful is crazy. To call either of these apps lackluster

Are you kidding me? If you cant realize how good motion is and what its bringing to the table than i know its just pure apple contempt on your part. Motion has changed the industry. “

I don’t know anyone who really uses Motion beyond a quick previs tool for client sessions. Everyone I know uses After Effects for motion graphics and higher end software for compositing.

I don’t think Motion has fundamentally changed the industry. Motion doesn’t really have any competitors. It’s a quick, GPU-accelerated motion graphics tool that has some decent basic compositing tools, but it can’t really compete with AE for motion graphics or with Shake, Nuke, Fusion, Combustion etc. for compositing. It has a quirky interface that annoys motion graphics pros and compositing pros alike. It’s really designed for editors who want to easily throw together some motion graphics quickly or do some basic compositing/roto tasks that are beyond the capabilities of FCP.

I really just don’t see the need for Motion to be a separate app. I think Motion’s roto/masking tools and optical flow retiming would be far more useful built right into FCP. I think the motion tab of FCP’s Viewer window should inherit Motion’s functionality – better scaling, better keyframe tools, and Behaviors.

Motion is a nice tool for editors who aren’t well-versed in motion graphics or compositing. I just don’t see Motion gaining much traction with professional motion graphics artists or compositors, however, and I really don’t think that Apple was targeting those markets with Motion in the first place.

One of the ancillary benefits of Apple releasing Motion was that it may have been a good kick in the pants to other companies to start harnessing the tremendous power of GPUs. Adobe has in fact done so, partnering with nVidia to harness the power of their GPUs in Adobe’s production software:

https://www.nvidia.com/object/builtforadobepros.html

I haven’t used any of these products, but in theory it’s a good idea. If Apple can go in a similar direction with OpenCL and FCS, it will be a win/win situation all around.

[Eric Meek] “You say if you didnt have FCS you would SIMPLY use other things. LOLOL. SIMPLY? you my friend take FCS for granted as a fool would.”

Now you’re getting personal, which I don’t think makes you look any better. It’s disingenuous of you to open your post by saying that you aren’t trying to insult me, then you call me a fool. Which is it?

[Eric Meek] “You keep using FCS and why? Its the best. Either that or you cant afford any other. “

It’s a little bot of both. I can’t afford any other application (read AVID) that has FCP’s capabilities at a better price. So yes, FCS is the best, but only at a given price.

If AVID ever wakes up and realizes that the expensive proprietary hardware game is over, they could compete more directly with FCS. However, they aren’t willing to do this yet so Apple has made huge inroads in the market, starting form the bottom up. AVID is really in a bind because they’ve painted themselves into a corner by focusing only on the high-middle to high end market. They seem arrogant about their position in the market and very dismissive of the importance of mindshare and momentum generated by a huge mass of “lower end” users. They have only begrudgingly offered Media Composer as a software-only product because of FCS. The standalone Media Composer software is crippled by the lack of HD I/O and a lack of support for inexpensinve third party I/O hardware from companies like AJA and Blackmagic. As FCP’s capabilities become greater at a lower cost, AVID’s market is shrinking upward. AVID reminds me very much of SGI, another once-great company who made great technology but was ultimately run into the ground by corporate arrogance and a slowness to react to market realities.

I think AVID should wake up and smell the coffee and realize that the days of proprietary hardware are over. They should open up their products to support products form companies like AJA and Blackmagic. This would be better for everyone – it wold open up AVID products to a new group of users at a new price point, and it would spur a healthy competition between Apple and AVID to offer better products at lower prices.

[Eric Meek] “You think this many people use FCP because its bad. “

You’re putting words in my mouth and making unsupported assumptions about my opinions.

[Eric Meek] “And on a side not, i notice in your post you never mention the addition of Color to FCS? “

Color is the crown jewel of FCS, in my opinion. There’s nothing out there that’s even remotely close to Color’s price that can touch it. I wold pay the full cost of FCS for Color alone. It’s that good. On this point, we agree.

[Eric Meek] “The addition of Color to FCS just tells you that Apple is committed. I think you just spite apple to much to notice. “

You are making incredible assumptions about my opinion of Apple and its products. Just because I have a few beefs with FCS doesn’t make me an Apple hater. if anything, your violent reaction to my post makes you seem like an Apple fanboy. But I don’t know you, so I won’t make that assumption. You do come across as being very defensive about criticism of Apple, however.

[Eric Meek] “Motion is not as good a compositor as AE no, but I can argue its a lot better than AER at a lot of things as AE is better than Motion at a lot. As far as a quick visualization motion cant be beat. Real time playback in front of a client is priceless.”

I agree with you.

[Eric Meek] “You dont seem to get that. Its not trying to be shake. THEY HAVE SHAKE FOR THAT. And they do sell 3000 dollar apps. Shake for linux is 5000.”

I DO get that, just read my comments above. And Shake has been officially discontinued now, by the way. It’s no longer for sale at the Apple store.

[Eric Meek] “Bottom line, i think your sorely mistaking the purpose of motion.”

No, I get what Motion is. It’s just not particularly useful for my needs.

Eric, I appreciate your comments and I respect your opinions but I think you really need to be careful about taking things so personally. I think we can agree to have a difference of opinion without you resorting to calling me a fool or an Apple-basher.

Take care.