The Motion 5 update – do you feel excited?

[Walter Soyka]

[Simon Ubsdell] “I’m not sure I understand the question. Isn’t that like saying what possible use could you find for Ae if not as a helper app for Pr? But I’m sure you mean something more subtle than that …”

I mean something more subtle than this fill-in-the-blank:

Instead of thinking of Motion as a tool that helps editors do quick graphics/effects/tx, Apple should develop Motion to be a tool that helps ____ do _____.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Walter Soyka] “Instead of thinking of Motion as a tool that helps editors do quick graphics/effects/tx, Apple should develop Motion to be a tool that helps ____ do _____.”

Instead of thinking of Motion (solely) as a tool that helps editors do quick graphics/effects/tx, Apple should (also) develop Motion to be a tool that helps users who aren’t that interested in editing or simply don’t edit at all do better motion graphics and compositing.

Does that make any sense?

There are plenty of takers in that constituency, believe it or not. There are plenty of Motion users who don’t own or use FCP X. Not everyone is an editor or aspires to be an editor. Motion is a terrific gateway drug for those wanting to get into mograph and compositing but for whom the challenge and/or price of grappling with Ae or Nuke is just way too high at this point in their careers.

I happen to have acquired a reasonably in-depth insight into this community (sample size: approx. 6000) and I admire and respect their aspirations – to the point of even trying to help them realise those aspirations.

Has Apple forgotten they exist? Do they not care about them? Do they have great plans for them that we don’t know about?

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com

[Mark Suszko]

The way I see it is, by porting a lot of the Motion Functionality into FCPX, Apple has created a wider space across the two applications for third-party developers to make fill-in apps and functions thru plug-ins. Apple should be aggressively courting these third-party developers now.

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Mark Suszko] “Apple should be aggressively courting these third-party developers now.”

Instead of cutting them off at the knees, as they’ve just done with those nice guys at motionvfx …?

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com

[David Mathis]

I do not think Motion is a joke but can understand that perception. It has been an extension of Final Cut Pro since its inception an looks to be that way over the long term. After all it does not have the power of After Effects and is not a competitor. Given the development cycle, or rather the lack of it, there is no reason for me to believe that Motion will be anything than a companion application.

As much as the 3D text feature is super cool, the generators are useless other than creating motion sickness.
Behaviors are nice but expressions are much more powerful. One other thing that bothers me is the lack of transitions. After all, they are important which is why After Effects has them built in. The only transitions that Motion will ever have, for the moment, are the ones being made for use in FCP X, hence an extension.

Rather then waste time and money on useless stuff, bug fixes with meaningful tools being added would be a better use of resources. Then again, with price point and target audience, those factors must not be all that important. My two cents on the subject.

[Bret Williams]

Just curious if Adobe has ever fixed the exact same bug in After Effects. Actually, I’d say it’s much worse. But the result is always the same. Entire planes jump behind and in front of each other as you pan rotate the camera around. I was surprised when I switched to Motion to find it had the same issue more or less.

[Walter Soyka]

[Simon Ubsdell] “Instead of thinking of Motion (solely) as a tool that helps editors do quick graphics/effects/tx, Apple should (also) develop Motion to be a tool that helps users who aren’t that interested in editing or simply don’t edit at all do better motion graphics and compositing. Does that make any sense?”

What kinds of new functionality would you like to see to advance Motion toward that goal?

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]

[Walter Soyka]

[Bret Williams] “Just curious if Adobe has ever fixed the exact same bug in After Effects. Actually, I’d say it’s much worse. But the result is always the same. Entire planes jump behind and in front of each other as you pan rotate the camera around.”

Ae does not exhibit the bug Simon shows above.

If I’m right about what you’re describing, it’s not a bug. It’s by design.

Some operations are necessarily 2D, and performing these on 3D layers in Ae will “break” 3D space, including layer intersections and shadow-casting. More here:
https://helpx.adobe.com/after-effects/using/3d-layers.html#3d_layer_interactions_render_order_and_collapsed_transformations

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]

[David Roth weiss]

If it’s any consolation, Autodesk Combustion, designed by the original team who went on to become the Motion team, had exactly the same issues.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions

David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.

[Bret Williams]

[David Mathis] “After all it does not have the power of After Effects and is not a competitor.”

Can you expand on this? And I promise I’m not trying to be argumentative.

I kinda feel like: painting – better, particles -better, replicators – no contest, groups vs. pre comps – way better, rigging & publishing – no contest, true 3D (text) – better, 3D extendables (mObject) – similar if not better to the Andrew Kramer thing and certainly cheaper, performance – way better, and the list goes on.

I know everyone says AE is more powerful, and perhaps I don’t doubt it is in some aspects that don’t touch 90% of everyone’s needs. I used to say it was too until I made the switch.

I’m with Simon. It’s a killer app worthy of some tweaks and bug fixes to take it over the top. If Apple really want to position it as a helper app, then why no send to motion, or open in motion or roundtripping? That’s not much of a helper app. In fact, you have to start in Motion from scratch no matter what you’re doing unless you’re updating something from the effects browser.