[Robin S. kurz]

[Shawn Miller] “Sure, if you’re lucky enough to not to have to be compatible with others, then you can pretty much use whatever you want. Not all of us are that lucky.”

So are people saying that they’re actually exchanging native project files with clients and not just the rendered clip? ? Because I have maybe seen that needed a few times on larger scale in-house productions, but never once did I need to myself in my decade+ as an AE user nor seen others do it. And if you’re not exchanging actual project files, then I’d love to know how it can be a given that any one app “has to” be used, aside from maybe just plain HABIT. That’s like saying you can somehow tell which NLE was used to edit a film, so you have to use NLE X, Y or Z on your film to get the same? I’m pretty sure I can show you a number of clips with massively elaborate motion graphics where you can’t and won’t guess if done with AE or Motion.

But at least no one has brought up “Dynamic Link” as the must-have, killer feature (or have they?), seeing that it’s anything but “dynamic“. Never mind that, if anything, Motion shows what that means i.e. should mean. Add to that it’s exponentially deeper integration into FCP than AE is in Premiere and you’re golden.

I always say there’s a good reason for “Render and replace” in PPro. Because the playback speed with native files is just unbearable 95% of the time. And once you have to hit that (i.e. render out) I have to wonder why you “have” to use AE? That’s aside from the fact that I haven’t seen anything anyone has put together in AE for any average everyday production in the past many many years that they a) couldn’t have just as well done in Motion, and b) for not only in a fraction of the time, but also for a fraction of the cost, assuming they used Motion for more than 3 months (or just one month, depending on their subscription ?)

[Shawn Miller] “If you’re doing the kind of heavy-duty mograph work that requires a powerful workstation, you’ll probably need something equally powerful for complex Motion or Fusion projects. Multi-layered 16-bit .exr files with deep effects stacks and animations on top will bog down any software application on any platform… “

Aside from the fact that that isn’t even anywhere close to Motion’s target audience or intended use-case, I’d guess you’ve never actually used Motion or seen it in action? If “Multi-layered 16-bit .exr files with deep effects stacks and animations” is someone’s bread and butter (which I’ll venture to guess it isn’t for anyone here?) and they’re looking at MOTION to do it… erm… not very clever. It’s about being able to do the vast majority of things editors need in the context of editing (but also much more of course, if needed), and that with features such as not needing to render, or making changes as it plays back, and again, it’s brilliant integration with FCP. A level of integration that AE/Premiere can only dream of.

But then the whole “AE vs. Motion” thing is ultimately nonsensical either way since Motion isn’t and never has been positioned as a replacement for AE in any way, shape, or form. That notion has only come from users that are ignorant to the differences, only know AE (barely) and just see some overlapping functionality and make an assumption that’s somehow what Apple’s intention is. Then they just go with AE because it’s “the standard” that the big boys use.

I always say that if general-purpose and everyday mograph is what you need and you’re using Premiere, then clearly AE is what you should be using, but Motion certainly couldn’t hurt. But if you’re using FCP then you’d be stupid and shooting yourself in the foot big time if you used AE instead of Motion.

[Tim Wilson] “Can you tell what you’re doing with it? What about Motion was so compelling that compatibility with Motion was your go-no go for adopting X?”

I’d venture to say that is not so much what it is he’s doing, just the how, i.e. fact that he can do it in a fraction of the time one would need in AE, assuming you don’t need some super-specialty plugins that are only for AE, or integration with C4D or the likes. Something that only a fraction of AE users ever need from my experience.

But then I also use Motion to make entire CI conform packages for clients consisting of custom titles, transitions and the occasional generator. And if they’re using FCP they can install the project files (a case where it actually makes sense) so that they can use and customize nearly any and every aspect of the titles, transitions etc. that they need (and I allow ?). All in realtime, zero rendering. Would love to see anyone do anything even close to that with AE/PPro.

Alex Gollner’s near full-time job for example is making custom assets for the BBC, who have switched very large parts of their production to FCP. And with that effectively Motion. His single, highly complex assets are also optimized to work in any broadcast AND social media aspect ratio… adjusting automatically to whatever type of project they’re used in. Again something you could only dream of being able to set up in AE for Premiere.

Just watching this already five year old clip (where absolutely nothing has changed since ?) says it all for me. Or even Simon’s take on the matter.

For me Motion’s most lacking feature is: PROMOTION (from Apple). And information/education. Because I, too, would love to know what people think they cannot get from Motion, outside of specialty plugins and integrations, that they actually need on a day to day basis in the direct context of their work in their NLE. The primary if not almost only relevant context for Motion. Not massive 3D composites and/or 200 layer mographs.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook

[Robin S. kurz]

[Ty Ford] “I thought this was referring to Apple and FCP.”

Not entirely sure how it could have been in context, but… ok.

[Ty Ford] “I use them effectively in Pro Tools”

Also not sure if that’s supposed to be some sort of consolation, and if so, how? They’re mostly fine in Logic Pro as well. So… now what?

Doesn’t get me even any closer to an actual solution either way, unfortunately.

[Ty Ford] “I googled FCP and iZotope and perhaps this will give you some help.”

Um… thanks?

Believe it or not, but not only have I also googled my fingers bloody, but I’ve also (as I already stated in my initial post) had several utterly useless exchanges with iZotope’s support. And yeah, I actually know how to apply a filter in FCP. Not something I need to google nor turn to iZotope of all people to learn. Never mind that what they suggest on that page is painfully WRONG and DANGEROUS and will quickly and easily jeopardize one’s entire FCP project! So it’s actually quite fitting that they would post something like that. Only further showing they are clearly FAR outside of their lane on matters of FCP.

Bottom line: they are selling up to TWELVE HUNDRED DOLLAR packages to FCP users that factually do not work as advertised (assuming you can even get them installed that is!) and for which they are clearly too ignorant or simply disinterested to GET working. Cuz hey, they already have my money, right? (and refuse to refund it!)

This has been an issue for years not months or days, as you can easily see by the starting date of this thread! If only I had known of Accusonus before I was stupid enough to buy TWO updates from v5 on. ????????‍♂️

They need to get their act together or just plain stop claiming that their filters work in FCP. Simple. But being told they work great anywhere else contributes nothing to an actual solution, sorry.

– RK

[Robin S. kurz]

Huh? ????

[Ty Ford] “I would talk to apple about it”

a) Why exactly would I want or need to talk to Apple about the matter? In no way is this an FCP issue

[Ty Ford] “I consider $299.99 a pretty inexpensive amount for what FCP X offers.”

b) what does FCP’s price have to do with any of this?

Oh, and c) it’s Robin.

[Robin S. kurz]

Accusonus is a definite alternative, yes. And before I upgrade again, I’m going with them. And there are others of course, too.

Crumplepop? Erm… not so much. Extremely basic in comparison.

Either way, “plus a little more off the rear end” is most certainly not a solution or option, let alone can anyone be expected to even have to consider that with a $400 package! ????

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook

[Robin S. kurz]

[Craig Seeman] “I reported this to iZotope but wondering if others have seen this as well. Or, perhaps others have used these in FCPX 10.3 and not experienced the issue.”

Just for the sake of completeness since this is the only post that came up when googling the matter, I can emphatically say: YES, it happens to this day!! With the most current version of both. So FCP 10.4.8 and RX7.01n Standard and it’s made the entire suite completely USELESS for me in FCP. It’s infuriating, especially after having reported this to them countless times as well and now seeing that YOU have, too! The most recent nonsense being that it took them AGES to get their goofy installers stapled and signed (don’t even get me started on that utterly ludicrous “Product Portal” app bs), so that you couldn’t even INSTALL them on anything newer than Mojave. And even now, after the supposed “update” to make it work under Catalina it still throws up errors. A real ****-show.

Their support has proven to be by far the worst I have experienced in a very long while, especially for such a pricy product! Only half-a$$ed responses that were never actually useful and you got the impression they didn’t even bother to read what I wrote. Absolutely inexcusable. They will never see another penny from me. Which is unfortunate, since in principle the tools are great.

/rant

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook

[Robin S. kurz]

Notice the “est.” at the end. Meaning, it’s the estimated size. In other words “up to”, but rarely IS that size. FCP/Motion merely wants to make sure that you’re aware of how much free space you’ll need worst case.

Other than that, Mark is right. Send it to Compressor and whittle the file down to almost any size you want. Just at the cost of quality, if that’s even of any concern.

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook

[Robin S. kurz]

Let me guess. Motion version more current than your FCP version?

Yeah. ????

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook

[Robin S. kurz]

Technically, you can’t.

“50i” are 25 interlaced fps. So while you can of course simply plop the 50i clip into a 50p timeline and output it, with which you will have “converted” it, the clip will still not have 50 actual fps. It’ll have 25fps that have been doubled, and those will also be half the vertical resolution since one field has to be tossed to get progressive.

Ergo: I wouldn’t even bother.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook

[Robin S. kurz]

[Kirk Pitts] “Eneo3D from reelpath does 3d objects also.”

Only in no way comparable with mO2. And boy is their site fugly.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook

[Robin S. kurz]

The only way to get true 3D objects into FCP/Motion (outside of TEXT) is via “mO2“: https://motionvfx.sjv.io/qLReL

Download said models from TurboSquid and import.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook