Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?

[Matt Kemp]

Maybe the word ‘crappy’ was a bit harsh. Certainly the inclusion of colour wheels is a huge improvement over the colour board.

And again, this is all purely subjective – I’m not trying to insult anyone who finds X a great tool. For many, many functions I also thinks it’s really useful. But for colour correction (seeing as though you ask), I’m used to tools like Lumetri, curves adjustments, gamma controls and other features which are pretty basic in Premiere, After Effects and Photoshop, all of which I use extensively.

I know for example that Resolve was born as a dedicated grading software, but can you really imagine a series DaVinci user going to the colour wheels in X and thinking ‘wow, this is great’.

Nope.

Again, it goes back to what Apple intended with X. If it wanted to produce a piece of software which developed organically on from 7 with groundbreaking new features such as the magnetic timeline, but with all the pro functionality found in the other high end NLEs, it could have. But that was never the intention. So I think it’s disingenuous and fanboy-ish to defend the ‘pro’ credentials of X when it clearly was never designed to meet those kinds of high end demands. I like X, I use it. But I’m not about to defend it to the death just to be dogmatic.

For certain projects I wouldn’t dream of using Premiere. For others, I wouldn’t go near FCPX. I just don’t really see why the debate can’t be a bit more honest. My two (or maybe now 20) cents: For quick turnaround ingest, cut and output projects, FCPX rules. For graphics, grading and motion effects (and anything which requires key framing), it sucks. No NLE is perfect, that’s why we have the luxury of choosing the one which is right the project we’re working on.

[Matt Kemp]

I think you make a really good point Bill, and it’s an easily forgotten element of all this – how the software makes you feel while using it.

X makes me feel like an amateur, forced to adopt techniques and stylistic choices which Apple think is the way it should be done, and I find it frustrating and occasionally borderline insulting (I really should get out more) 🙂

[Bill Davis]

[Matt Kemp] “I’m used to tools like Lumetri, curves adjustments, gamma controls and other features which are pretty basic in Premiere, After Effects and Photoshop, all of which I use extensively. “

Uh, X’s new color tools include curves, (hue vs sat, hue verses hue – and more!) – AND they have a really awesome way to translate on-screen visual clicks into adjustment points that let you manipulate only the colors present in your shot that are important to you.

It also has lift, gamma, and gain.

These work in Rec 709 and ALSO Rec2020 – clearly preparing for the ProResRAW environment they knew was coming but that the market was a bit surprised by.

So again, what do you feel is still missing in X verses how Premiere Pro works today?

Can you help me understand what’s possible in PPro that’s currently not Possible in the current build of X?

Thanks.

Oh, and while you might personally “feel” that X is only good for modest projects, but it appears others feel a bit differently. Check this out.

https://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/2054-cut-with-fcp-x-the-prestigious-period-mystery-thriller-la-peste-surpasses-game-of-thrones-to-become-the-most-watched-television-series-in-spain

The first few paragraphs seems to indicate it’s a bit larger a project than what you conceive of as in X’s “wheelhouse?”

Just an observation.

Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.

[Matt Kemp]

Feel a bit bad hijacking this thread with these thoughts, after all I only came here after frustratedly googling ‘why is key framing in FCPX so bad’ ☺

I wouldn’t say that FCPX is only suitable for modest projects at all. With a pro using it, high end products can be made. I myself have used FCPX almost exclusively on projects which have gone on to win some awards. I also don’t think it’s representative to write an A-B list of what X can’t do which Pro can (although for VR, which I work a lot with, that list certainly exists).

It’s like with the keyframe question. It’s not that you can’t keyframe in X, it’s that the function is badly designed, making it difficult to work with and adding default ease functions which Apple has decided we all need but which more often than not need to be manually removed.

Anyway I think the point really is that different pieces of software suit different kinds of projects, and people feel more or less comfortable and happy with different suites for different reasons. In that sense I think it’s healthy to be system agnostic. If you have access to both Mac and Windows machines, FCPX, Adobe CC and Resolve, then the bases are covered for whatever the clients throw at you 🙂

[Paul Golden]

Stipulation: I love FCPX, but I’ll give my two cents on key framing.

I much prefer After Effects’s much more robust implementation for several reasons. (I don’t know Premiere enough to offer an opinion). The features that FCPX is lacking as keyframes are the following:

1) Lack of hold frames:
Right now in FCPX, you have to use two keyframes: one at the beginning value one at the end before the value change. This is tedious and fraught with opportunities for mistakes. AE has a hold frame that can be converted to a non-hold frame or back with ease.

2) No roving keyframe expansion:
If you want to stretch out the action, you can’t lasso the keyframes and option drag them out to create a rove over time function.

3) Copy Paste a drag:
In AE, you just copy/cut and paste keyframes as normal. In FCPX, you have to find a special copy Keyframes command in the menus, which gets old real quick.

4) Not all things are key-frameable
Certain parameters, which I’m not sure why, are not key-framable in FCPX

5) Keyframe in Timeline awkward:
The control-V expand of keyframes in the timeline brings up a very poorly interface where you either have too much space or not enough space devoted to the keyframes you want to control. AE is consistant.

6) No twirl down values in Timeline:
FCPX parameters must be changed in the Info panel which is a ways from where the keyframes live. AE allows twirl down and adjustment of keyframe parameters in the same line of sight just off to the left of key frame.

7) No scripting or expressions in FCPX:
I know that it’s not After Effects, but the expressions language in AE is very powerful. FCPX has very basic, non-programmable key frames.

This list is just the stuff off the top of my head. I know FCPX is not a composite tool like After Effects, but the closer it gets to AE’s keyframe abilities, the sooner I can stay in FCPX for more of the time.

[Tom Sefton]

It is rubbish.

Still buggy – position your playhead over a clip and then add a keyframe using the effects window and sometimes it just jumps into a totally different position on the timeline – usually out by a couple of frames, meaning you need to manually adjust it.

In Ae or Pr, if you have some keyframes on a specific track (easy now, I know these are roles or whatever the shit we are supposed to call them), you can just elastic band them all and move them down the timeline. You can also grab a few and hit delete to remove them. In FCPX you need to manually click on each individual one and move it with a shift click, or right click and delete. Far too convoluted.

It would be incredibly cool if FCPX looked in a similar direction to Resolve and put a Motion tab inside FCPX, along with a Logic tab for audio finishing…..one more expensive license, a limited one just for FCPX, or adoption for each user that has bought all programs. Just imagine – instead of clicking on the titles tab, you click on a tab that opens Motion inside FCPX. Custom transitions, titles, animations, key framing, compositing and more, available inside your FCPX workflow. Another one lets you work just on the audio in a Logic X workspace. They could even implement a robust apple-ised version of pixelmator for adjusting still frames too. Barely any rendering between the 3 programs. No xml exports. Just simple to use Pro tabs that allow for finishing more complex projects. The only reason to ever export an EDL or XML would be to work between Resolve and/or Fusion for more complex work…..

So cool, so effortless, solves the keyframing issues for 95% of what is required, and ties 3 great pieces of software inside one app…. Just saying.

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk

[Oliver Peters]

[Tom Sefton] “It would be incredibly cool if FCPX looked in a similar direction to Resolve and put a Motion tab inside FCPX, along with a Logic tab for audio finishing…..one more expensive license, a limited one just for FCPX, or adoption for each user that has bought all programs. Just imagine – instead of clicking on the titles tab, you click on a tab that opens Motion inside FCPX. “

I just love how everyone is so happy with FCPX, but then wishes it were something it isn’t. ☺

This is a great thought, but the odds of Apple doing something like this are slim to none. Their headspace is simply in a different place these days.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Tom Sefton]

I just love how everyone is so happy with FCPX, but then wishes it were something it isn’t. ☺

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTJrNHdzm0k

“you’re not happy with anything. You don’t want most of it, you want all of it….”

Human Nature – if something else does something better, you want it!

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk

Some 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.

[Matt Kemp]

I don’t think expecting something as fundamental as keyframing to actually work is too much to ask, do you?

FCPX doesn’t need to be different, it just needs to be better.

[Paul Golden]

There’s not much to love about FCPX key framing. It’s pretty basic and could use improvement. Any of the suggestions I made would not change the fundamental nature of FCPX, which is a really good NLE. There’s a surprising amount of compositing capability in FCPX, so if the animation tools (of which key framing is a part) could keep up, I would be more inclined to stay in FCP for certain projects and not bail to AE.