Why no “Send To Motion”?

[Shawn Larkin]

FCPX + a truly integrated M5 would be like a nice / clean / well-designed version of Smoke 2013.

That’s the dream at least.

[Chris Harlan]

[Walter Soyka] ” is there any reason other than history why NLEs and DAWs are so separate? Is there a workflow or development reason why, say, Premiere can’t reasonably have Audition built in below V1 on the timeline?
“

Of course, what do we mean by DAW? The term seems to have a certain flexibility. Is it as simple as a software multitrack recorder? Or does it also require sequencing abilities? To my mind, a true DAW requires both recording and sequencing, and many current DAWs started their lives as sequencers and only later incorporated recording and playback of audio files. Personally, I see Audition as a very nice multitrack recorder/editor, and see no reason why something like it could not be soldered onto Premiere. Whether its code, which goes back to Cool Edit, is at all compatible, I have no idea, but really, something very much like it is already there.

As I say, though, I see DAWs as being much more than that. The thing is that when editors generally think of DAWS, they are not thinking of the whole package, and in particular, they are not thinking of the features that make DAWs attractive to musicians and composers. Editors tend to only notice the sound file editing and recording functions of Logic, for instance, but not the underlying MIDI function, the ability to generate virtual instruments, the ability to control remote instruments, and all of the quantization and composition tools that composers and musicians find valuable.

I personally would love to see a true and complete hybrid, but I doubt many others really would. I’d love to be able to slap a virtual instrument like my Omnisphere into a track below sfx and lay down a pad, but how many people would that kind of complexity actually serve? Probably not many. When people talk about Logic becoming the audio component for X down the road, it occurs to me that they don’t have a full grasp on everything that Logic actually does, or who it best serves. ProTools is the same way; I’m amazed at the number of people who think it is just a fancy nonlinear multitrack deck.

[Walter Soyka]

[John Heagy] “I wish Apple had simply put Motion in FCPX.”

[Jeremy Garchow] “That’s what I say all the time, then out come the shotguns and hunting hounds.”

I’m more and more sympathetic to this point of view. I find myself in After Effects, thinking about how easy a specific problem would be to solve in Premiere, or I find myself in Premiere, thinking about how easy a specific problem would be to solve in Audition or After Effects. Dynamic link is nice, but it’d be cool to have any of the tools I need, all in an editorial context. If I could smush Ae, Pr, Au, and Sg together into one uber-app, I’d be pretty happy. I don’t really know what I would want the interface to be, but having all those capabilities together would be pretty nice, and having them separated as they are now is sometimes frustrating.

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

[Shawn Larkin]

I think, or rather, hope that Apple is working on a kind of all-in-one integration for the other Pro Apps.

It seems to me that since FCPX and M5 share the same engine under the hood (built on A/V foundation), that having a Motion Project in the FCPX timeline is (almost) as speedy having Connect FX built into Smoke 2013 (although SMAC 2013 has all kinds of bells and whistles for 3D compositing that M5 doesn’t). But in a way it’s better because you don’t have all the overhead code and memory demands to make it work as a single app.

So it’s not an all-in-one per say, but having the foundations be so solidly tied between applications is better than dynamic-linking or round-tripping IMHO.

I think if Apple could do the same for Audio — building Logic X around A/V foundation — as well as making the current implementation of Aperture work better, then that solution would be a kind of best of both world scenario, where you get speed and responsiveness tied to a depth of functionality … when you need it.

[Oliver Peters]

[Shawn Larkin] “I think, or rather, hope that Apple is working on a kind of all-in-one integration for the other Pro Apps.”

I would agree, although I take a much more pessimistic view. I just don’t think Apple has the interest in doing this. There’s also the issue that the development teams are in different geographical locations, have different corporate marching orders, and come from different historical backgrounds. In the end, it’s something Apple just doesn’t do very well.

I, too, prefer an all-in-one app, but when you compare the level of effects integration within Avid DS, Autodesk Smoke, Quantel eQ/iQ/Pablo or even Avid Symphony/Media Composer – to what you get in FCP 7/Motion or Adobe Premiere Pro/After Effects – the difference is night and day.

Take for example, FCP X or even Motion by itself. Neither handles multiple-layer compositing very well. You quickly choke playback when you hit the limits of RAM or the GPU with no mechanism to throttle performance past the basic (and inadequate) performance/quality preference setting. Motion is a motion-graphics tool with a nice level of advanced compositing, but it’s no Shake, After Effects or Nuke.

Don’t get me wrong. I started this thread, so I clearly see some advantage to sending a clip or group of clips to Motion for some advanced work, but I’m just not sure Apple can pull it off in the right way. In my FCP 7 experience, the sequences that have caused me the most grief and serious crashes have been those that contained live Motion projects inside the timeline. So, while it’s a nice idea that I think bears development, I’d be happier with a simple one-way “send to” function to get clips into Motion without worrying about live round-tripping back into X.

– Oliver

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

[Craig Seeman]

But I’d say that the execution of “Rigging & Publishing” and the ability to open FCPX effects in Motion is itself, innovative.

I think a number of people are looking at an old methodology to do something whereas Apple is likely to approach this very differently. I can’t help but think they’re thinking beyond XML to send clips back and forth at least in their own apps.

While it’s not quite the same as “everything in one app” they seem to be looking building around a “common engine” as they’ve done and in the progress of furthering with FCPX and Motion.

Given how very long it’s been Logic has gone, I expect we’ll see a bit more than a UI facelift with some new features.

Given that Apple has basically dumped all ProApps that came from purchases… except Logic I believe, that Logic Pro X, just like FCPX, will be an entirely new app.

Of course it’s entirely speculative but I think there’s going to be a deeper tie in… and I still can’t help but believe that’s why we haven’t seen Send To functions as of yet. I’m not sure “Send To” would be the appropriate term so much Round Trip or a better method of linking Motion and/or Logic Pro X projects to an FCPX Project (timeline).

As to Aperture, that’s another program that hasn’t been updated in a long time.

I don’t want to say my position is the foil to the pessimist because I have no strong case to build my position on beyond that Apple’s forward motion seems to be towards tight integration around common engines.

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Oliver Peters] “I would agree, although I take a much more pessimistic view. I just don’t think Apple has the interest in doing this. There’s also the issue that the development teams are in different geographical locations, have different corporate marching orders, and come from different historical backgrounds. In the end, it’s something Apple just doesn’t do very well.”

There are other companies that follow this business model exactly. This isn’t new or unique to Apple.

Also, none of that matters if the system works.

[Oliver Peters] “Take for example, FCP X or even Motion by itself. Neither handles multiple-layer compositing very well. You quickly choke playback when you hit the limits of RAM or the GPU with no mechanism to throttle performance past the basic (and inadequate) performance/quality preference setting. Motion is a motion-graphics tool with a nice level of advanced compositing, but it’s no Shake, After Effects or Nuke.”

Are you saying After Effects is a real time compositor? We all know that’s not true.

I think we can all cripple a program when hitting RAM and CPU limits unless you start playing with the big boys on the big iron systems of today, and even then, there are real physical limitations.

What do you discount is FCPX’s real time scrubbing preview of single effects capabilities. Even on slower machines this is still pretty good, chromakeying is near real time. I’m not saying it’s of final render quality, but getting a rough idea of what is going on is pretty damn good. Can’t do that in After Effects. Or Smoke.

Smoke 2013 is a render monster, and not super real time, especially when you start stacking nodes and rendering. It will also fragment a SAN in no time. The image sequence rendering makes sense from a workflow standpoint, but it causes much more drive maintenance on my end which slows the studio down. Plus, while it is an editor, it’s not made for longer form editing with tons of footage, but maybe that’s just my opinion. Short form promos/spots, absolutely, whole haertedly, yes. If I did promos, I’d look at Smoke.

[Oliver Peters] “Don’t get me wrong. I started this thread, so I clearly see some advantage to sending a clip or group of clips to Motion for some advanced work, but I’m just not sure Apple can pull it off in the right way. In my FCP 7 experience, the sequences that have caused me the most grief and serious crashes have been those that contained live Motion projects inside the timeline. So, while it’s a nice idea that I think bears development, I’d be happier with a simple one-way “send to” function to get clips into Motion without worrying about live round-tripping back into X.”

How much have you hammered Dynamic Link? Just curious.

[Shawn Larkin]

Jeremy pretty much sums up the reality of the alternatives: Smoke, AE, Etc.

i think the A/V foundation + a New(er) Mac = a giant performance gain between Apple’s Pro Apps vs. those of Adobe or Autodesk or Avid.

I am curious to know if Apple will create a more independent eco-system for doing your work. Perhaps, you do all the heavy lifting in FCPX with some Motion in your timeline and then jump into Logic X for your final mix.

I mean in my dream world, M5 would have some additional compositing functionality added and you would be able to do some kind of high-end grading in Aperture. But that ain’t gonna happen so you still might need to go out to Nuke, AE, Resolve or Smoke for the final touches on shots or the whole show. But maybe not for audio if they can make it work with Logic X right.

[Walter Soyka]

[Shawn Larkin] “i think the A/V foundation + a New(er) Mac = a giant performance gain between Apple’s Pro Apps vs. those of Adobe or Autodesk or Avid.”

I’m not sure I follow here. A/V Foundation is a media handling library — no more, no less.

Adobe has written their own high-performance media handler, called MediaCore, and it has great performance. Adobe apps must rely on QuickTime for ProRes media, since ProRes decode is dependent on QuickTime, and there is a performance penalty here due to the lack of cross-platform 64-bit QuickTime library (thanks, Apple) — but many other QuickTime codecs and all MXF/MPEG2/MPEG4 variants are handled natively by the 64-bit MediaCore. Not only does this provide “giant performance gains” over 32-bit QuickTime (like FCPX enjoys over FCP7), but it also does it on a much broader hardware base than FCPX with A/V Foundation.

There are things that I think are often faster in FCPX (especially logging/sorting/searching footage), but that’s due to UI and project database design choices, not the underlying media framework.

Avid and Autodesk also have unique media handlers — Avid uses MXF natively, and Autodesk uses a frame store. They have their reasons, and those are unlikely to change, but I don’t see how this creates a performance gap.

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]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Are you saying After Effects is a real time compositor? We all know that’s not true.”

You are dead on. The Ae renderer is very old-school in its philosophy (though caching is significantly improved in CS6).

But I think Oliver’s point was that because Ae assumes it will not render in realtime, it has a decent toolset for dealing with that fact. Motion’s design assumption seems to be that it will run in real-time, so once you exceed your machine’s capabilities, you don’t have many options for dealing with that reality.

[Jeremy Garchow] “I think we can all cripple a program when hitting RAM and CPU limits unless you start playing with the big boys on the big iron systems of today, and even then, there are real physical limitations.”

You know how they avoid rendering on Flame? They call it processing instead!

And they let you offload it to a farm in the machine room [link].

[Jeremy Garchow] “How much have you hammered Dynamic Link? Just curious.”

Dynamic link can be pretty painful with anything other than simple Ae comps. If you’re using dynamic link with even slightly complicated comps, I highly recommend using Ae CS6’s new “Cache working area in the background” feature. Dynamic link can then pull cached media instead of trying to re-render on the fly.

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