Chris Harlan
Forum Replies Created
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “I do, I swear to you, know that motion as titler!
“ROTFL
-
[Charlie Austin] “I don’t think there are many people, or any at all here in LA who’re using FCP as a finishing tool. I’m sure there are some, but the people who finish stuff that we do, feature trailers and TV spots, don’t. “
I don’t know, man. I have to disagree. I see an awful lot of stuff get finished in FCP. National broadcast spots. You’re right that there’s not as much color work done, but I can name a dozen places (including one where you used to work) that finish many of their promos and commercials on FCP. Its certainly an overall distant second, but to say “not many, or any at all” does not jive with my experience.
-
That musical chairs procession you just illuminated explains SO much!
-
[Charlie Austin] “[Chris Harlan] “I think the reason that this whole conversation seems odd to me is that I perceive Motion as being part of FCP and one of the reasons I like FCP so much. I think of Soundtrack Pro as belonging to FCP as well.”
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if thats the “plan” for X as well.”
I’d be thrilled if it is. I don’t see anything that can’t be addressed that would keep me from being an X user. Whether it will be or not is another question. But I’m perfectly content to wait on the sidelines for the time being. And I’ve been enjoying Pr and MC quite a bit, though my heart still belongs to 7.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Similarly, I think Pr will gain traction because they have After Effects in the suite (and Adobe is putting in yeoman’s work on Pr).
It makes a lot of sense.
“Yeah, that’s what has got me into the CS6. I like that whole concept, and I like working in it. I cut some nice action spots in Pr from a series I’d been cutting in 7 and really liked it.
The Suite aspect of Avid is not quite as well developed, but its kind of fun for me to be back in AvidFX since I did a lot of Boris work early on. I wish there were tighter integration, though, between ProTools and MC.
So, yes–I hadn’t really thought about it much, but the suite aspect is very important to me. Maybe if X irons out the few kinks that keep me away and integrates with something like Logic, I’ll take it for a serious sled down the hill.
-
[Shawn Miller] “Honestly, you can still get poked at by Nuke, Fusion, Flame, Inferno and Shake (yes, Shake) artists for admitting to using AE for compositing. “
Yeah, I’ve seen that first hand, but not for a few years. I particularly remember a Fusion guy snorting aloud when somebody mention AE. Of course, that was in a very different decade.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Wow, even the VP of Applications Marketing ‘sort of’ believed in Motion.
it MAY do for motion graphics what FCP did for editing. MAY being the operative word.
At least they were realistic about it then. I don’t see anything in that release about taking down After Effects?
“I think the reason that this whole conversation seems odd to me is that I perceive Motion as being part of FCP and one of the reasons I like FCP so much. I think of Soundtrack Pro as belonging to FCP as well.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “n that same article, here’s his quote:
“But Final Cut Pro does represent a wonderful 100th birthday present for modern film editing, which really began around 1903. The notion of non-proprietary software systems that can run on CPUs, without special hardware, combined with Apple’s courageous decision to use the XML protocol, which is wide open to all third-party developers to interface with, is huge. ”
Maybe he had access to an early v4 build or something. I don’t know”
Yes, I think I read somewhere that he did.
-
[David Lawrence] “[Craig Seeman] “Sans any hard facts about Apple’s marketing strategy my gut informs me (I think that’s what the growling means) that Herb may be right on this.”
Here’s the 2004 Press Release:
https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/04/18Apple-Introduces-Motion.html
Key quote:
“Motion opens the door for everyone to create professional-quality motion graphics by eliminating the need for complex timelines and keyframes,” said Rob Schoeben, Apple’s vice president of Applications Marketing. “With its revolutionary technology, breakthrough ease-of-use and low $299 price tag, Motion may do for motion graphics what Final Cut Pro did for non-linear editing—bring the ability to create pro-quality results to the masses.”Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? I’m with Aindreas on this.
“I think you guys are all making way too much out of this. I totally get where you are coming from, especially the AE folk. AE folk have always crapped on Motion, and probably rightfully so.
I can only say that for me, at the time, it WAS a revolutionary tool. It was really cool to get near realtime feedback on a G5. Behaviors were fun to play with. I really enjoyed using it. It made creating GFX fun again. Oh, oh. See, maybe the X parallel isn’t so far off. I guess the reason that Motion worked for me is that it let me do as much or more than I needed to, and X doesn’t work for me because it doesn’t (yet) let me do all I need to do.
I’ve done quite well with Motion. So I get peeved, a bit, when people speak ill of her, even when she probably deserves it.
-
[Craig Seeman] “I can’t help but consider that Apple thought Motion’s real time playback (and the supporting GPU needed) would bring people into the Mac family… or at least discourage them from moving to Windows (After Effects being cross platform).”
I think that’s right. It was a very nifty feature for the time. People, who now take that kind of visual feedback for granted, seem to forget the slog that RAM preview only was just a few years ago.