-
Well – it’s “early” 2012
-
[tony west] “It seems like people who like Motion are more willing to work with X than people who like AE… I can see why someone who is not a Motion fan would not feel tied to X and more likely to move to Prp”
I’m a heavy AE user, so here’s my perspective from the other side.
Premiere Pro and AE have been interchanging via Dynamic Link for a few versions now, but with FCP7 around, that’s never been enough to get me to think about PrP before. I think more AE users are now looking at Premiere because it’s been installed on their hard drives for years, the interface is familiar, and CS5’s MPE is very powerful.
Adobe’s Dynamic Link is cool, but I think that Motion’s feature for publishing to FCPX is absolutely brilliant. I hope Adobe sees the potential for something similar with AE/PrP. If FCPX had met my needs better, or if my clients had adopted FCPX themselves, I might have actually started doing more graphics and title work in Motion instead of AE — specifically for this workflow.
Unfortunately, I think the missing Send to Motion from FCPX feature is a glaring omission that really limits the usefulness of effects work with FCPX, and I hope Apple remedies this soon. (I’d also hope that this would be only one of many interchange features for a future release.)
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] “Unfortunately, I think the missing Send to Motion from FCPX feature is a glaring omission that really limits the usefulness of effects work with FCPX, and I hope Apple remedies this soon. (I’d also hope that this would be only one of many interchange features for a future release.)”
I’d also hope that having built Motion 5 so heavily into the FCPX landscape Apple will now start to develop it more seriously than they have in the past and turn it from a very fast and very handy semi-pro tool into one that genuinely competes at the top level.
For example, I’d like to see the introduction of Expressions, as well as extensive channel and colour space manipulation and a bunch of other stuff.
My negative side however keeps telling me that Motion is and will remain a close relative of FCPX in its design philosophy – good enough up to a certain point where it will keep hundreds of thousands of users more than happy but not allowed to develop to the point where it will finally become the grown-up tool that it is perfectly capable of being.
But then again, who knows? I’d love my negative side to be wrong.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Walter Soyka] “I hope Apple remedies this soon”
Me to Walter.
Thanks for the insight
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “Strictly speaking Motion 5 is a 64 bit rewrite which is quite a big deal – which would probably also explain why there are a few bits “missing” from the previous version.
“Exactly, which is what I mean by the disfunction that passes as Apple communication.
Imagine that what we all hope for, an actual way to use Motion again as the front end compositing/animation tool for fcp, is just a temporary set back because of the rewrite.
Now imagine removing that singularly important function from your shiny new rewrite without communicating to the users that count on it, that it’s a temporary set back and will be addressed asap.
You’ve just imagined what I’ve been trying to figure out for months – why Apple is so unwilling to be a forthright partner regarding anything they do.
They’ve created an unnecessary love/hate relationship with too many of their adherents.
They need to realize that really smart people are often really ignorant regarding certain aspects of their duties.Like politicians in DC, they need to get out of their Cupertino bubble and get some outside assistance in basic communication skills.
At this point I’d offer them my firm’s services for free.
-
[Neil Goodman] “Also, while Logics effects re great, they dont hold a candle to Waves, “
Well these are the things that are ultimately subjective. I think they more than hold a candle to Waves sonically. I have Waves and Masterworks sets and the Logic stuff sounds as good on average in my studio especially things like the channel EQ and Convolution Verb.
Also to disagree with the basic audio “mixing” premise. I think mixing in FCP7 is pretty primitive compared to what you can do in X, you just have to approach it differently.
As I’ve said before, I never even considered doing an audio mix in FCP before X. Previously, everything was routed to my audio studio and mixed in DP on a big console. I mix and master just as well but much faster now staying within FCP.
But again, you’ve got to be willing to rethink the approach, which after years of 24 track machines, mixing consoles and racks of gear, I’m all into.
There needs to be a lot of evolution and hopefully quickly (the ability to add your own plugins being a simple start) but I’m in a different place with audio and film/video since learning this thing.
-
Well, I’m a weird one.
I use AE AND I like FCPX. Have never bothered with motion as when I try to do something with it, it crashes. This doesn’t account for v5 though as I haven’t played with it much. I use Autoduck a lot to get to AE in fcp7, and will use foolcut if FCPX becomes more of a daily driver.
I’m with Walter that the fx publishing/rigging brings a whole new level. I hope the interaction between X and v5 can get refined a bit more.
Jeremy
-
I should add that there’s been some super vague rumors today on the Twitter, about something happening with Apple and editing within the next few days.
-
There is a lot to like, and I wish I could jump in and stay, but there are some show stopping issues for me. The biggest two I have found that kill workflow are the bloated project files and no multicam.
I do some weddings and the multicam feature in legacy really speeds things up for certain portions of those edits… like getting a rough cut of the ceremony together from 3 to 5 cameras.
We tried cutting a ceremony in X recently by syncing multiple cameras stacked in their own story lines. We would find the shots we wanted and copy them into a “master” secondary storyline above everything else. Somewhere along the way I realized things weren’t quite in sync and I couldn’t find a definitive point where the problem started. I think it was the result of someone auto syncing and not doing a full check to ensure accurate sync.
I decided to start from scratch and manually sync up all the DSLR files. After getting all of the clips connected I grouped the clips from each camera into compound clips. Then I pasted all of my newly synced compound clips into the old project and started putting the cuts in based on the old edit. With four 1 hour long compound clips, and the original master storyline with source clips the project grew to almost 400MB. Every time I added a new cut X sat with the beachball spinning for about 45 seconds before I could jump to the previous edit and add another cut. Every cut slowed things down more and more. I was wishing I could turn off the auto save because I think X saving after every change I made was the bottleneck. It was really obnoxious.
-
its dead tho isn’t it? Isn’t FCP just dead? I tend to overstate this stuff, but a brit channel four editor spoke, in company, in the last week, with deep irritation at how fast the entire industry has abandoned apple. many in the world had deep fondness for the righteousness of FCP as it had intellectually stood.
and then Apple lobotomised it. They didn’t refresh it, they didn’t make a 1.0 version, they tore out half its brain.
there was always a groundswell status quo waiting to strike FCP down: apple simply handed it to them.
Apple were always morons with regard to the vertical reach requirement of pro software.FCPX is poorly envisioned software and it died the day it landed.
there are no magical updates: it is mangled stupidity as software and it is clinically dead.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
Yes, Aindreas, it is not final cut studio. I still think you give too much credit to fcp7 on the whole.
Right now, it’s for smaller and not very complex workflows. My workflows aren’t super complex (I don’t know, everyone’s workflow is of relative complexity), but it doesn’t work for me quite yet.
That being said, with some stability, I’d start using it on some real projects. I’d deal with the limited interchange, I’d deal with no video out, I’d deal with some of the things that aren’t quite deveoped. I’m itching to cut a spot on it.
In all honesty, what I can’t deal with is the instability. That has to be fixed from the inside.
For me and my brain, there’s some really great concepts in this software. If this software was released on its own without the fcp moniker, my feeling is that people would see it differently. But they didn’t, so they don’t, so it goes.
It’s almost February, how was your month of Avid?
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up