Robin S. kurz
Forum Replies Created
-
[Michael Paul] “and I already think of giving up Motion and switching back to After Effects”
Huh? Sorry, but how would that change anything?? Doing it in AE would require rendering it out first to use it in FCP, something that you can just as well do in Motion. Never mind that AE doesn’t even have anything such as Dropzones to begin with.
[Michael Paul] “it doesn’t really make much sense in all fairness.”
In all fairness, it does actually. If you understand how Motion works and its intent and purpose in the context of FCP. Enabling the inclusion of audio would be fine in some cases, such as maybe this one, but reek complete havoc in many many other cases. So your frustration would simply change from “I can’t add audio!” to “I can, but it’s not working as expected!”.
[Michael Paul] “So any advice…”
Is the animation so intricate that it can’t be done in FCP and simply saved as an Effect Preset to be applied to others? If so, then I’d say you’re left with rendering out the individual animations (which shouldn’t be a big deal if you have everything set up as a template already anyway). Something, like I said, you’d have to with AE as well, so I have no idea what advantage you figure a switch would give you.
Or simply manually syncing with the original audio in FCP. Which I can’t imagine being horribly complicated, though more work than just feeding a template, yes.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
You might consider posting that here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/apple.motion/ , possibly even along with the actual file. At least I for one couldn’t give you a useful explanation without actually seeing the project. I could only suspect that it may have something to do with the font.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Oliver Peters] “A nice presentation, but fundamentally skewed to pitch his preference for FCPX.”
An FCP editor, at an FCP event, showing/comparing FCP’s paradigm and highlighting its clear advantages to other FCP editors. Wow. What a completely surprising conclusion!
When and where is he selling this as anything BUT an opinion piece? To imply it is anything else, just as a cheap means of discrediting him and his personal opinions, would be amazingly disingenuous. Never mind that I have no clue as to how one even skews one’s own opinion. ?
[Oliver Peters] “The definition of linear versus nonlinear in NLE software is flawed.”
One where he clearly states “my own definition of what linear editing is”. Not the definition. And even if he hadn’t, how is that even vaguely relevant to his overall point of the demo? What does that change? Red-herring anyone? Anyone’s interpretation of linear or non-linear, green or blue, briefs or boxers would not change anything about the simple every day operations he demoed in each app and their painfully huge differences in terms of handling.
The whole thing is essentially exactly this, only substituting 7 with PPro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRZgVZd9UmQ
In which case I don’t even care what it’s called. I call it hilarious. In a painful kind of way.
[Oliver Peters] “By presenting the use of “modifier keys” as some sort of hidden function is clearly a way to present that operation in a negative light. “
Er… yes? That pretty much describes it perfectly. Well put and 100% right. Because I have no idea how one can say that effectively hiding functionality, which is by far the most preferred and most common of the two operations, under a modifier key is a positive thing. Other than “because that’s what I’m used to and change is categorically icky!” Otherwise do explain how needing a modifier key (that I have seen 80+% of PPro users don’t even know about!) isn’t negative.
Oh wait… ripple editing suddenly isn’t what a real “pro” wants to do 9 out of 10 times, just skateboard video noobies? A “pro” wants gaps after gaps after gaps and finds taking two (or more) steps to do the same thing far more “pro” and efficient. ?
For me, the operation he demos at around 9:30 alone is the epitome of what is so utterly idiotic about a track-based system. It could’ve stopped there. Nuff said.
[Oliver Peters] “And how is track-patching any different than connected clips?”
You can’t be serious. ? If there’s anything in X that can somehow be misconstrued to be “like patching” by any stretch of the imagination, then maybe ROLES. But other than that, sorry, to suggest the one has anything to do with the other is just ridiculous imho.
[Oliver Peters] “In fact it’s worse, because connected clips don’t carry the same attributes as storyline clips.”
¿Huh? Attributes? Wha?
[Oliver Peters] “There really is no “old” style versus “new” style.”
Now you’re just making stuff up. Otherwise feel free to quote the timecode at the point he said anything even close to “new style” or “old style”. He was comparing paradigms, not styles. And no, they’re not synonyms, sorry to say.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
No kiddin’. I’m in fact so completely detached from “legacy mode” that I honestly cannot figure out how I could ever have thought that was a really great and/or efficient way to work. Or accept that it in fact WAS at the time. And that for a period of almost ten years… ???
O_o
Oddly bizarre, in retrospect.
But not nearly as bizarre as the thought that anyone would actually and voluntarily choose to continue down that same path. Wow. It’s like seeing someone shun an automobile and haughtily climb onto their horse-carriage. ?
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
Wow. The indoctrination is strong within you, my Padawan. :-))))
[Terry Maloney] “I don’t want to give anybody the wrong impression and say – God bless you.”
Hmmm… then maybe consider just plain not saying anything at all?? Especially when it’s completely random and has absolutely nothing to do with anything? Boom… “problem” solved.
[Terry Maloney] “Allah, Buddah, Hare Krishna and even Lucifer”
I don’t generally believe ANY fairy-tales to be true, no matter the title, thanks.
[Terry Maloney] “Do not respond to this message. You may get persecuted or lose your job if you say the wrong thing.”
Assuming I lived in a (in that respect) so horrendously messed up country like that, yeah, probably. Pretty pathetic, I know. But I don’t, so I can actually say what I want and don’t have to cower to such cringeworthy nonsense or condescending hubris. What a concept. Hope your animation works out for ya. Cheers.
-
[Terry Maloney] “May Jesus bless you.”
Huh?? :-)))))
Er… thanks. I’m cool.
-
Whether it works i.e. how well it works depends nearly exclusively on your machine. In theory, if you take a simply brush and have the needed horsepower, it should work just fine.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
No, you’re of course right Simon. I made it all up. My bad. Just “hearsay”.
-
Yeah, Simon, I totally meant they literally copy/pasted code from one to the other. DAMN! Got me! So brilliant. :-))
-
If you say so.