Why no “Send To Motion”?

[Craig Seeman]

[Oliver Peters] “Why is it that Apple can’t manage to reinstate “send to Motion” from inside FCP X?”

My guess is that will return with Logic Pro X. My thinking is that round tripping can’t be completed until they figure out how it’s going to work from the audio side as well and that may not be locked down until they’ve got that working in Logic Pro X.

[Oliver Peters]

I would tend to agree with you, though I’m not sure how one relates to the other.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Craig Seeman]

[Oliver Peters] “though I’m not sure how one relates to the other.”

I think audio is the issue. Just my hunch. Of course one might argue there’s no compelling reason to send complex audio to Motion but I think this is a case of Apple taking the more difficult path because they want what they want.

In my own thinking, it’s also related to why we have no Gang option in the new Dual Viewers. Obviously we know Apple can Gang clips because it’s there in Multicam. So want might as why didn’t they add a feature that they already can program for. My own hunch in this regard is around the use of the scopes.

You can know have scopes for both viewers. They don’t even have to be the same scope. What I think they’re stuck on is they can’t get two scopes to playback in real time without losing resolution because of the heavy system demands the scopes have. It’s probably similar to why you can’t have multiple scopes open for any viewer. My guess is that Apple wants multiple scope real time playback without lose of quality. When they can solve that or when they give up and decide degraded real time scope playback is OK, we’ll see a Gang function in the Dual Viewers.

[Aindreas Gallagher]

but there are other questions right? I’m getting to the point of waiting for a back and forth about the implications of premiere possibly working in an understood industry fashion in an 18-24 month timeline.

Its not so much FCPX to motion – isn’t it kind of why you would pair with motion? I am biased, i’ve been intensively at AE since 3.1/4.0.

to my thinking, the primary reason you take editing material to that environment in 6 out of 10 cases is grading and maybe some mograph finalling?

small trumpet blow – I just tried, today, to pitch my ability to do shot to shot grade on a behind the scenes 3 min piece I cut, with the stuff shot on alexa, where the ad itself was actually shot on 35 mill, at great expense across europe – the ad itself has been graded in davinci, surreally mimicking a sixties style I totally failed to unpick. I would have killed to have been in the room for the film grade.

But – the point is that AE contains colour finesse right? I’ve read your comparative piece on the CC stuff – I am half ignorant inclined to agree – I graded a channel’s vertical shot Ident expensive landscape views in colour finesse.

It is an utterly serious piece of kit – if for no other reason than that you can calibrate the shadow mid and high ranges operations per shot, then take them through through colour spaces that have cyan going for them.

AE has had, as you point out, finesse since ver3-4.

It is an oddity that there is an almost unseen *nuclear CC arsenal* in AE for the editor – that has nothing to do with Mograph.

Also I like premiere in the timeline.

So anyway – hey – that magnetic timeline/ zooowwwieee.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Walter Soyka]

[Craig Seeman] “I think audio is the issue. Just my hunch. Of course one might argue there’s no compelling reason to send complex audio to Motion but I think this is a case of Apple taking the more difficult path because they want what they want.”

I think I am missing something. What do you see Send to Motion doing that it would require this?

I think Send to Motion has be very simple and single-clip based (to avoid having to reconcile the two different timeline models). Open the clip from the timeline (trimmed? with handles? the whole clip with a IOPs set?) in Motion, then replace the instance in the timeline with the output of the Motion project.

I would have guessed that the problem is that Apple has to reinvent their entire interchange infrastructure (having deprecated EMXML and the Quicktime-based .MOTN renderer), and that Send to Motion was a low priority, given the otherwise-awesome FCPX/M5 interchange via rigging/publishing.

[Oliver Peters] “Dynamic Link between Premiere Pro and After Effects is one of the biggest selling points for the editors migrating to Premiere Pro.”

It’s a bit ironic that I wish Adobe’s DL had something like the aforementioned rigging/publishing.

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

[Michael Garber]

In listening to Philip Hodgett’s Terence and Philip Show podcast last night, it would seem that it has something to do with App Store sandboxing. Sounds like the FCPX team is bound by the same rules of non-Apple developers. Could explain a lot of things.

https://www.philiphodgetts.com/2012/12/the-terence-and-philip-show-episode-48/

Michael Garber
5th Wall – a post production company
Bloggy Blog: GARBERSHOP

[Oliver Peters]

[Michael Garber] “Sounds like the FCPX team is bound by the same rules of non-Apple developers. Could explain a lot of things.”

I don’t think so. Apple clearly and routinely violates its own rules. For example, FCP X updates in Lion and Mountain Lion are patch updates, not full installers. That is not the case with other apps and is generally not allowed for any other developers. Besides, you already have the ability to open and modify effects from FCP X inside Motion. Wouldn’t that be the same type of cross-application modification?

– Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Michael Garber]

I’m sure they do get away with more than other app developers. But perhaps there are some things they don’t get away with. Check out the podcast. I’m pretty sure he states what he heard from people who work on FCPX directly.

If I’m wrong or it’s more complicated than what he said, then I’m happy to retract what I wrote.

Michael Garber
5th Wall – a post production company
Bloggy Blog: GARBERSHOP

[Oliver Peters]

[Michael Garber] “Check out the podcast. I’m pretty sure he states what he heard from people who work on FCPX directly. “

I did. But that doesn’t mean anything. App Store apps also can’t use installers that spread things all over your hard drive. Didn’t prevent Apple from moving the OS to the App Store.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Walter Soyka]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “But – the point is that AE contains colour finesse right? I’ve read your comparative piece on the CC stuff – I am half ignorant inclined to agree – I graded a channel’s vertical shot Ident expensive landscape views in colour finesse. It is an utterly serious piece of kit – if for no other reason than that you can calibrate the shadow mid and high ranges operations per shot, then take them through through colour spaces that have cyan going for them. AE has had, as you point out, finesse since ver3-4. It is an oddity that there is an almost unseen *nuclear CC arsenal* in AE for the editor – that has nothing to do with Mograph.”

From Oliver’s article Color Grading Choices [link] (now almost two years old): “Unless you are a masochist, it’s a really only a choice between an integrated tool, such as Avid’s, and a dedicated grading application like Resolve or Color.”

I love After Effects. It’s my primary tool. I use it for all kinds of things you’re not supposed to do in Ae, like print design and large-raster finishing — but I honestly can’t understand why you would want to color grade in Ae when Resolve is free.

With Ae, you can’t re-conform/color-trace. You can’t (easily) render individual clips (with or without handles) for easy interchange back to finishing elsewhere. Nothing is real-time. There’s only one still store, and that is all-or-nothing display. There are no grade management tools. There’s no real timeline navigation or shot management. The point tracker is naive at best. Feathered masks just arrived in 2012, but you can’t use the tracker to drive a mask’s vertices (adding insult to injury). Ae lacks support for control surfaces (though I think Color Finesse does support a couple). Ae has nice color management, but the Color Finesse custom UI is unmanaged.

There is an unseen nuclear CC arsenal in Creative Suite Production Premium: it’s called SpeedGrade. I am really looking forward to seeing how that develops over the next few versions.

[Aindreas Gallagher] “Also I like premiere in the timeline. “

Let’s go waaay back through the sands of time and dig up Stu Maschwitz’s old What Should Adobe Do With Premiere Pro? [link] from 2008. While several of his points in there on performance are well-addressed in Ae CS6 with the global performance cache, his points on the interface could be very well-taken today.

I think we are now sufficiently off-topic!

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