Andy Patterson
Forum Replies Created
-
[greg janza] “It’s primarily a subject relegated to niche forums like this one due to the fact that there’s a variety of options and all of those options are good.”
I agree and I have said that many times myself but some people feel the need to give FCPX more credit than it deserves.
[greg janza] “I have no real loyalty to Adobe even though I’m a very happy creative cloud customer.”
Me neither. I don’t have the need to pretend Adobe is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Adobe has made some boo boos.
[greg janza] ” Fifteen years ago I was a very happy Avid editor and then I became a very happy FCP editor. The point is that the tools are irrelevant. It’s the end product that matters. The tool set is just a means to an end and that tool set can change over time.”
I ‘m hip. We will soon stop editing video and start editing holograms.
[greg janza] ”
And if these silly debates must rage on, can each company’s pricing structure be removed from the equation? The notion of debating a product that is practically free from every company makes no sense.”I agree they are silly at times but they can also be fun at times.
-
[Charlie Austin] “[Walter Soyka] “What on earth is the purpose of this line of discussion?”
Excellent question. ☺ This thread was started to compare the canned titles in Premiere vs the canned titles in FCP X. Not sure how we ended up discussing 3D object modeling in FCP X (which is not something it is intended to do). I guess it’s my fault for making the silly bowtie animation. Mea Cowpa… ????”
Posting about canned effects is fine but mentioning the full capabilities of both titling system should not be off limits. I have seen many threads go down a rabbit hole. This one actually stayed on topic.
-
[Charlie Austin] “Again, FCP X is not 3D Modeling software and I’m not suggesting that it is. At all.”
I never stated you thought it was a 3-D modeling program. There a some people that think they are creating logos by simply using pre animated 3-D text inside FCPX and adding a motion blur to it. I do not consider that creating a logo. That is the point I am trying to make.
[Charlie Austin] “Bored again tonight, so here ya go.. 15 min real time, ~4 of which were spent creating the font to use, so 10-11 min.”
Thanks for posting the video but it is helping to prove my point. Simply animating the word Chevy can be done very easy using FCPX with canned templates. When replicating the actual Chevy Logo is needed it takes much more time. Do you kind of see the point I am trying to make? I am not just talking about 3-D logos but all graphic elements. Keep in mind they have premade items for 3-D animation software? For example if someone wanted me to create a tattoo of a black widow spider but replace the red hour glass of the black widow with the Harley Davidson logo it would only take a few minutes if I already had a 3-D model of the spider. On the other hand if I had to create the spider from ground zero using my 3-D software it would take much longer.
[Charlie Austin] “no rendering”
I would not expect there to be rendering if there is no ray tracing with true surface textures. I want to address this in my video if I can ever get it done. My video is probably going to have be 30 minutes long if not longer depend on how long this thread becomes. I hope it doesn’t go much longer that is not to say it was not interesting and I do appreciate you posting the videos. Thanks again.
-
Could you post a screen shot of the capture settings? Does it sound like the chipmunks in other programs?
-
[Tony West] “[andy patterson] “Charlie had to use plugins and workarounds for the Chevy Logo”
I don’t know what he used, but it certainly seemed to be faster than it’s taking you to put your video up.”
My video was just about ready until this thread got started. I have to include Charlie’s video clips to make a comparison. Keep in mind my video will be some what of a tutorial with voice over showing how things are done. Charlie did not show how it was done. Those videos take a bit longer. I also have a lot of things to cover in my video. I will show 3-D animation and 2-D motion graphics. I imagine my video will be about 20 minutes when completed.
-
[Bill Davis] “F) Call SmartSound. They want their 1990s tech back.”
Soundbooth had some really cool features but it was dropped.
[Bill Davis] “Still having trouble seeing much actual “innovation” in a list like that.”
What has FCPX done other than the trackless based system? I am not saying it does not have merit but what else did Apple introduce? Apple certainly did not invent native editing, GPU acceleration, 64 bit, metadata or background rendering.
[Bill Davis] “Lots of fine ideas, don’t get me wrong. They’re just OLD good ideas and nothing moving any bars very far IMO..”
I think we are confused about the innovations of FCPX. Premiere Pro supported the Red One native R3D codec long before FCPX. I don’t think FCPX has anything like Adobe Anywhere which might be a bigger asset to some people’s workflow than the trackless system of FCPX. Same could be set about editing VR projects.
[Bill Davis] “Actual innovation takes PERMISSION to innovate. But I still have trouble seeing the public facing part of said innovation in a company that seem focused on asking for what kind of painting the mass audience wants – before they set up the easel.”
?
[Bill Davis] “IMO, that’s likely to get you a lot more Thomas Kincade – and not very much Picasso.”
?
-
[Walter Soyka] “[andy patterson] “Using a dedicated 3-D animation program to create simple logos is not hard at all and I bet I could do it faster and easier with a dedicated 3-D program than you could using FCPX.”
For a slick execution of a simple extrusion like this? I bet not. Charlie’s going to have it done before you even start your render. (Also, Charlie won’t have to render!)”
Keep in mind Charlie had to use plugins and workarounds for the Chevy Logo and even then it did not replicate the sample logo 100%. It looked good but it was not identical. As far as rendering is concerned I stated in another thread I don’t think FCPX uses ray-tracing. Rendering can take a long time if you have several metal and glass objects in the same scene and make use of ray-tracing. If you do not use ray-tracing (I don’t think FCPX does) the rendering will be done in two seconds if you are just animating text. Keep in mind you can take a picture of the side of a brick house and use the brick image for a shader in a 3-D program as opposed to actually using a displacement map. When I see titles in FCPX they have that look to them as opposed to a real textured displacement map. That is why FCPX does not need to render anything. It kind of fakes true 3-D.
[Walter Soyka] “But let’s get real. Who, in the real world, uses their NLE to produce logos?”
I have used Premiere Pro to make logos in the past but my point was that there is a difference between a logo and a simple text/title animation. Wouldn’t you agree? Isn’t that worth clarifying? Having said that I can create mattes/masks in Premiere Pro really easy and I do that all the time using the titling/graphics tools in Premiere Pro. I will have a video up soon to show what Premiere Pro on it’s own can do. I will also show how easy it is to use a true 3-D software program for animating titles.
[Walter Soyka] “What on earth is the purpose of this line of discussion?”
In this thread we are comparing the graphics capabilities of FCPX and Premiere Pro. It is worth discussing the pros and cons of each not just which one has better canned effects/templates.
[Walter Soyka] “If we’re talking about titling, why would you exclude Motion (for FCPX) and After Effects (for Premiere Pro) from the discussion?”
We were comparing the two programs exclusively but I do agree with you. If we include AE with Premiere Pro how can anyone say the titling system in Premiere Pro is worse than the titling system in FCPX? I have provided a link below that talks about the titling systems of FCPX Vs Premiere Pro as does this thread. I would like to think GM would prefer you animate the Chevy Logo as oppose to animating the word Chevy? That is not say FCPX cannot be used for motion graphics.
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/94929
-
[Walter Soyka] “Remember when this was what we thought the next FCP would be, way back in 2010?”
I remember some folks though FCP 8 would import native Aperture files and others thought the Final Cut Studio programs might get a unified GUI like the Adobe products.
-
[Bill Davis] “Apple is similarly delivering quarterly updates (on average) while apparently having no trouble introducing significant new workflow efficiency features (arguably much deeper and more transformative for the user experience) than those coming to Premiere.”
Could you please create a short demo showing the FCPX alternative to Adobe’s Anywhere? Having said that FCPX might support VR now but Premiere Pro has done it for a while. You may not need Adobe Anywhere or VR for your work flow but some people do.
I don’t see Adobe users saying the CC is awesome. I wish we could go back the CS days.
-
I image most people will say get the GTX 1080 Ti but the AMD Vega cards will be out soon if you can wait a little longer to see which one offers the best bang for the buck.