Brett Sherman
7
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
[Roger Poole] “in FCPX the project is called a library and the timeline a project, which is indeed stored within the library along with all the imported media”
I think the confusion here is that the location of the media and render files are actually a choice in FCP X. Yes, you can choose to store them within the library file, but you don’t have to. I always store the cache and media in it’s own folder to make a compact library file and to provide easier access to the media outside of FCP X.
-
Given the way he built the 3D models manually with layers, I don’t think you could do this with Motion. The Bezier tool in Motion doesn’t work in 3D space. With a different process using mObject, you could likely do it. But this is a pretty specific example that really only requires that one “trick” of drawing in 3D space.
-
Group layers are to Motion what Pre Comps are to AE. Clones are duplicates of anything. Which doesn’t really translate into AE other than multiple instances of the same Pre Comp.
Clone/Group layers are a little more than Precomps. The main power is that they are in your composition. Whereas a Precomp lives outside your composition and layers within it can’t interact with elements in the composition, such as masking layers. And, of course, you’re always flying blind with a Precomp. No way to see how changes affect the final Comp. The other really powerful feature of clones has to do with templates. The source of the clone layer can be changed with a rig, like a drop down box. For example, one template I did recently was a grid with various wipe shapes to bring it in. I used clones to select the wipe shape with a drop down box.
The short falling of Motion not having multiple Comps to me doesn’t have anything to do with Precomps. More that sometimes a project has more than one output and its better to keep it contained in one Project. I just can’t think of a way Group layers are not superior to Precomps.
-
[Stuart Christensen] “Just for fun, try resizing the timeline twenty or thirty times rapidly while moving a lot of stuff around in a long form timeline using keyboard commands, and you will quickly start to question this basic procedure and functionality. Do it 60 or 100 times daily and you will have no hair left on your head!”
I do exactly this. I think you’ll find most editors use keyboard shortcuts continually. And find it more efficient than mouse interactions. In fact, one of the complaints of many with FCP X is that it require TOO MUCH mouse interaction. In my view mouse interactions are superior when you need variable input, such as skimming a clip. But inferior with a single action, say marking an in. Zooming the timeline is somewhere in between. It’s variable, but doesn’t require an exact location. Because of that the keyboard shortcut works well for me. And once you know it, you don’t need to move your eyes off the screen. It becomes second nature. I even do the more complicated two-handed Cmd+ and Cmd- and never look down. In general I only need to look down to just get my bearings again on occasion.
You might want to take a look at CommandPost. It lists this as a feature – ‘Timeline Zooming with Mouse Scroll & Modifier Key (includes Magic Mouse)” I think you hold option and scroll the mouse wheel.
-
[Stuart Christensen] “My main aggrevation with FCX centers around expanding and contracting the timeline WITHOUT using keyboard commands “
I guess I don’t get what’s wrong with keyboard commands. If you don’t like the standard Cmd+ and Cmd- shortcuts, you can make your own single key shortcut. Typically editors have one hand on the mouse, one on the keyboard all the time. And as far as scrolling, you really want a horizontally scrolling mouse like the Magic Mouse. I’m not sure what other models work. But I’ve come to like the Magic Mouse a lot.
[Stuart Christensen] “he lack of a proper search function within the media import window”
As others have suggested. You can use the Finder window and simply drag your clips into the Browser. You can drag it directly on keywords so it gets categorized on Import. For example, you could have a keyword that says “New Clips” then just drag additional clips onto that and it instantly gets categorized with that keyword. Or you can drag in a whole folder and it creates a keyword with that folders name. So if you’re organizing media at the Finder level, it will keep that organization. To me the Import Window is really only to transfer and rewrap camera original files. Everything else I bring in I drag from the Finder level.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] ” Motion by contrast uses Groups in place of the Precomp concept and it’s a much more open way of working. A Precomp is essentially a closed container and we have to work around that in various ways, whereas a Motion Group is an open container and that offers considerable benefits.
But there’s an even bigger and more powerful difference and that lies in Motion’s use of Clones. These are very little understood even by many Motion users so here’s a basic primer:”
This is exactly right. As someone who came to Motion from AE (really to make templates for FCP X). The grouping and cloning really amaze me with their power. It’s also head scratching that AE hasn’t copied it. It makes me wonder if they simply are unable to with the code base they have. My guess is that AE will never have grouping as the complexity of the product increases for every feature that is tacked on.
Of course, Motion’s power is occasionally undone with flakiness. For example it wouldn’t let me link a parameter (Z-position) to the layer I was using for an Image Mask. Why? No good reason, it just didn’t work. I could go on and on about inexplicable flakiness. And often there is that effect you need that is simply just not there.
So if Apple intends it to be primarily for Template development, Motion would be well-served with more robust scripting – how about an if/else capability? And better temporal controls other than the “Ramp” single parameter control.
I do think Motion suffers from a lack of resources dedicated to it by Apple.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] ”
I’m just going to knock this piece of ad hominem nonsense on the head once and for all and then leave. I was here enthusing about FCP X before most of you showed up – within days if not hours of the launch to be exact.While that may be true. I think that is largely irrelevant.
[Simon Ubsdell] “I do not believe I have ever been dismissive of FCP X nor do I have the intention of ever being dismissive of it now or in the future. I will continue to use it and enjoy using it for as long as it’s still around. And I will reserve the right to be as critical of it as I would be of any other piece of software.”
No one is saying that there should be no criticism of FCP X. But I think if this is what you’re trying to communicate, you need to revisit your tone. You are not coming across that way. Saying you’re with Andreas, who( regardless of the entertainment factor) is clearly dismissive of FCP X – well that actually communicates something. And what actual specific criticism is in this post? I don’t see any specifics. Look, we’ve all had our rants. But by and large rants are not positive interactions. And do little to further good discussion.
-
If you are so inclined, you could make a Motion Template that does this. Looks to me like the original layer is keyed on top with a luma key. Then cloned layers underneath also with luma key and Colorization, with a horizontal offset. You’d also want to keep a clone of the original layer on the bottom too, without a key.
-
[Steve Connor] “Because buried amongst it there is some EXCELLENT debate on here and Simon is one of the best contributors”
I agree. Simon is very knowledgable, helpful and usually offers interesting food for thought. But lately he’s become more caustic and just making s&*t up out of thin air. Such as – “If an editor advances a stragegy that doesn’t fit perfectly with FCP X, his/her opinion must be dismissed as worthless, the more insultingly the better, regardless of pedigree, as happened the other day (shamefully) with Alan Bell.”
That just didn’t happen. No one insulted Alan Bell. Yes there was some pushback on the ideas, but isn’t that what this forum is for?
This thread is pure crap as far as I am concerned.
-
That’s exactly why he should not use the word “clan”. As the meaning of which is everyone who uses FCP X. The discussion on this board has become – “How dare the monolithic mouth-breathing FCP X users claim everyone else is a monolithic mouth-breather.”
Honestly, I think that’s why most actual FCP X users have abandoned the forum. I don’t know why I keep coming back.