‘send to motion’ in fxp x

[Jeremy Garchow]

There is no send to motion at this time.

The manual process you have mentioned is about the only way at the moment.

Jeremy

[Adam Dewhirst]

i find that astounding and not a little disgraceful.

[Jeremy Garchow]

[adam dewhirst] “i find that astounding and not a little disgraceful.
“

You and the rest of the Internet. 😉

[Jim Giberti]

It’s why a healthy dose of shame is not a bad thing for people or corporations.

There is absolutely no excuse to streamline your offerings the way Apple did with the Final Cut Suite of Apps – and then literally disabling the ability for the two remaining apps to integrate.

It should have been the first thing that was addressed in an early fix and now they’ve got another upgrade and still no way to practically work between X and 5…absolutely absurd.

I mean people like us who are working professionally with X and do a lot of compositing and animation and 3D go from a wonderfully integrated system to one that costs us countless time and frustration trying to do basic work.

Shame on Apple.

And don’t even talk about publishing.
Sure that’s nice, but it has nothing to do with integrating FCPX workflow and projects with Motion 5.
Work out the critical details first – then release your programs, please.

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Jim Giberti] “And don’t even talk about publishing.
Sure that’s nice, but it has nothing to do with integrating FCPX workflow and projects with Motion 5.
Work out the critical details first – then release your programs, please.”

It has been explained that what is happening here is that a Motion project and FCPX database are now completely different.

It will take some time to rewrite Motion so it complies with FCPX.

No excuse, but that’s the way it is.

[Jim Giberti]

[Jeremy Garchow] “No excuse, but that’s the way it is.
“

I’m certainly aware of the way it is.

These discussions are pretty much exclusively about the way it should be, hence the last sentence in my post.

And you’re right, there really is no excuse.

I try and imagine explaining to a client how I stopped running a very successful campaign in order to run a obviously poorer campaign by comparison.

There should be a law (at least for companies with more money than the government) that they need to actually improve their products before releasing them as replacements.

I’ve got FXP 7 and X , Motion 4 and 5 running back and forth right now in a crazy schedule of redoing some spots, and releasing a bunch of new ones and as much as I like X, we’re getting very close to going back to 7 and Motion 4 full time because of this.

Absolutely absurd position to put your actual proponents in.

Absolutely stupid for a group of visionaries.

[Walter Soyka]

[Jeremy Garchow] “It has been explained that what is happening here is that a Motion project and FCPX database are now completely different. It will take some time to rewrite Motion so it complies with FCPX. No excuse, but that’s the way it is.”

I don’t follow — what is it about the FCPX database that seems to prohibit sending clips to Motion?

Also, I thought Motion 5 was itself a complete rewrite [link], and given that Motion is the FCPX effects engine, I would have thought they were developed in tandem.

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

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Walter Soyka] “I don’t follow — what is it about the FCPX database that seems to prohibit sending clips to Motion?”

The project structure, which I called a database.

Andreas Kiel hinted to it a bit here: https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/22845

If you remember ;), FCP7 can import motion projects directly which seems to think that there’s a commonality either in XML or some underlying structure.

From what I can tell, Motion was rewritten, but I don’t know how far it’s come. Most of it was probably for 64bit and the rigging structure.

Yes, you can publish effects from Motion which FCPX can read, but that is much different than importing a Motion project or exporting clips to motion. when you start motion, you have a choice of what to do, a project, a generator, a transition, etc. When you choose a “template”, it saves them differently than just a .motn project. i don’t know what the difference is, if any, but it seems to be different.

I would think that better FCPXML or AXEL or whatever needs to be added. With FCPXML being so young, perhaps the framework simply isn’t there yet. That translation, (is it an effect? a generator? a text template?) probably still needs work along with the FCPXML.

What is encouraging is the rigging that’s already there. It’s hard to stay positive when there’s obviously so much work to be done, but that rigging is impressive. If even more interaction can be had between motion and fcpx, it seems like it would be extremely cool. I really wish motion was simply a part of FCPX.

Jeremy

[Walter Soyka]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Andreas Kiel hinted to it a bit here: https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/22845“

I read that differently. He also said, “So FCPX XML/Format and Motion XML/Format don’t have have a big (if any) intersection at this time – but they didn’t had one before as well.”

[Jeremy Garchow] “If you remember ;), FCP7 can import motion projects directly which seems to think that there’s a commonality either in XML or some underlying structure.”

FCP7 didn’t need to know anything about Motion’s project file or data structures; it relied on a little bit of very cool QuickTime trickery.

Look in your Macintosh HD > Library > QuickTime folder, and you’ll see a file called Motion.component. This component allows the system to present Motion files as QuickTime-accessible media, which were rendered on-the-fly (and under-the-hood) by the Motion rendering engine. Any QuickTime-aware application could “import” .MOTN files this way — even After Effects [link].

Given that, maybe this is in part a casualty of the QuickTime/AVFoundation transition.

[Jeremy Garchow] “What is encouraging is the rigging that’s already there. It’s hard to stay positive when there’s obviously so much work to be done, but that rigging is impressive. If even more interaction can be had between motion and fcpx, it seems like it would be extremely cool. I really wish motion was simply a part of FCPX.”

Agreed — the whole rigging/publishing system is simply brilliant.

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

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Walter Soyka] “Look in your Macintosh HD > Library > QuickTime folder, and you’ll see a file called Motion.component. This component allows the system to present Motion files as QuickTime-accessible media, which were rendered on-the-fly (and under-the-hood) by the Motion rendering engine. Any QuickTime-aware application could “import” .MOTN files this way”

That component did the work, then. I have an MXF component that does virtually the same thing for FCP7. It worked with Quicktime and basically married all of the disparate P2 information through XML, but presented the information to FCP via Quicktime.

So while it is certainly a function of Quicktime, the instructions that the component carries out are probably via some sort of language. In that link you sent, it said it gave him a flattened file, which means that the component is running a translation, it isn’t simply saying motion is a codec.

And then going FROM FCPX to Motion is different again, as things need to be timed and layered and sorted which seems to indicate some sort of language that’s being used. I don’t know, it’s speculation on my part, but QT components aren’t available in FCPX as there’s no QT API like there used to be.