Shawn Miller
1
COW Coin
Forum Replies Created
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “There’s been a lot of optimisation in Ae over the years that makes some things like this a bit quicker, although I would argue that it’s very much stuff that’s specific to mograph rather than compositing.”
Definitely agree. I think for better or worse, Adobe knows what AE is… a great multi-tool that specializes in mograph. Unfortunately, that seems to mean that they put much less effort into making it a better compositor and color management tool. Can you explain to me why AE doesn’t support compressed CinemaDNG? Adobe can’t seem to…
[Simon Ubsdell] “But I think I’d stick by my contention that these are really (relatively) small differences of emphasis rather than major conceptual divergences. Wouldn’t you agree?”
Absolutely! I almost said something similar in my original response to Bret Williams.
[Simon Ubsdell] “I find it very odd that many people still seem to think that applications like Fusion “don’t have track-based editing”. That seems to me to be fundamentally untrue.”
I might be tempted to say that Fusion and Nuke have layers but not tracks. ☺ Mostly because I see tracks as immovable time-based object containers, and layers as containers for time independent objects. How do you see them?
Shawn
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “[Shawn Miller] “Maybe it’s just my ignorance – how would you (for example), call up all (only) opacity keyframes in the composition?”
There are loads of sophisticated “view filter” options that would enable this sort of thing in both the Timeline and the Spline views..”
Yep, I think this is the more common way that animation packages approach graph editors and dope sheets (Fusion, C4D, Maya, Nuke, Lightwave, Blender, etc). I think the Adobe way of handling keyframes is somewhat unique to AE (single and double click access to keyframes in the layer stack)… I wish Premiere Pro operated same way.
[Simon Ubsdell] ”
Obviously they don’t match After Effects in every single respect but they are are pretty deep and flexible.”I don’t doubt that at all, however I think this is why so many motion graphics artists gravitate toward AE… they put up with a lot of crap for fast keyframe animation… well, that and the tons of available plugins, scripts, training, etc. But I get your point, Fusion et. al are every bit as powerful when it comes to mograph creation.
[Simon Ubsdell] ”
I come back to the point that I don’t think that there’s a fundamental conceptual difference between the two models, except that exclusively layer-based solutions have intrinsically fewer options … rather than the other way around, which is how I think most people think of it.”Agreed!
Shawn
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “It seems to me that temporal manipulation in Fusion (for example) is every bit as fancy as anyone could want it to be. It’s not somehow less functional because it’s nodal – it’s every bit as functional a vast limitless amount more.
What am I missing? To me the “differences” seem purely semantic and subjective.
(And no, I’m not back on this forum – I’m only here because the discussion is about Motion and Fusion.)”
I was hoping you might show up for this one, Simon. ☺
Maybe it’s just my ignorance – how would you (for example), call up all (only) opacity keyframes in the composition?
Shawn
-
[David Mathis] “There is a spline editor which I believe shows you keyframes and such. You are spot on with your post but having to dig through all the effects in a stack can be a small pain occasionally.”
Graph editors are nice – just about every animation package has one (AE, C4D, Maya, Fusion, Nuke). What AE (and probably Motion, I don’t know) is especially good at though is wrangling multiple keyframes from different objects. You can easily expose just individual transform properties (scale, position, rotation, opacity, anchor point) or you can see all keyframes in the comp with single or double keystokes. Of all the node based applications I’ve tried or learned to a minimal level of competence, none of them have been particularly good at heavy keyframe animation – it could just be me though.
[David Mathis] ” One thing that Fusion offers is to click on a node to see what the comp looks like at a certain”stage”. You can also have up to 6 versions of settings for each node (at least most of them) which I really love. “
Yes, I wish AE had a similar feature!
Shawn
-
[Bret Williams] “Ok layer based. I meant in lieu of node based. I just meant because something wasn’t node based didn’t mean it was obsolete or legacy. And that layer based is perfectly legitimate and used by AE which is a pretty decent app.”
Ah, I see. I agree, both approaches have advantages. Node based applications aren’t inherently more advanced than layer based applications, they’re just different… better for some things (complex compositing), not as good for other things (complex keyframe animation).
Shawn
-
[Bret Williams] “I think I saw that once and I remember thinking… “well that makes absolutely not the slightest bit of sense whatsoever.” Because it doesn’t.”
What, that AE isn’t track based?
Shawn
-
[Bret Williams] ” FCPX is still track based. AE is track based. If you’re expecting there to be i sort of magnetic timeline rippling, that just doesn’t apply to Motion (or AE). A bit OT, but in many ways, the “tracklessness” of FCPX is akin to the way Motion and AE work. In those apps you drag layers up and down vertically and other layers just move out of the way. That’s exactly how FCPX works. “
AE isn’t track based at all… one layer = one object. FCPX functions more like a track based NLE than a layer based compositor. ☺
Shawn
edit: AE isn’t TRACK BASED 🙂
-
[Bill Davis] “[Shawn Miller] “TA3 and TA5 aren’t new, they’re just a variations on the XLR standard. ”
Well of course.
But USB-C is equally just a variation on the USB standard – yet Apple adopting it was the worse thing that has ever happened to multi-media computing – cuz “dongles” are now required.”
Not exactly, USB-C is an update to the USB spec, it’s more than just a connector type. TA3 OTOH is just a connector, that’s why you can wire full sized XLR on one end of a cable and TA3 to the other end, no conversion necessary. I suspect fewer people would be upset about USB-C on the Macbook if the solution was an inexpensive cable with a different connector on the computer side.
Shawn
-
[Tom Sefton] “Red has minijack inputs on their basic I/o module but the “pro” I/o has xlr connectors.”
Ahhh, I didn’t know that, thanks.
Shawn
-
[Bill Davis] “[Shawn Miller] “Right… as I said, audio only devices mostly use XLR interconnects, so I don’t see them becoming obsolete anytime soon. ”
The only counter point I would make is that there are plenty of Professional devices (Red cameras, et al) that have dumped XLR auto interfaces for smaller variations of Mini-XLR, TA5F or even 3.5mm.
Of course, nobody really howls about them when they eschew the old XLR standard in favor of something smaller, less common and typically way more costly.”
TA3 and TA5 aren’t new, they’re just a variations on the XLR standard. They’ve been in use on compact audio devices for years (it’s the standard for Audio Technica body packs and on camera recievers)… you can get the connectors from $1.50 to $10.00 a piece (depending on brand) and 150 feet of cable for about $50 US, so cables aren’t expensive to build. Mini XLR makes sense in the Red camera IMO, since their focus is on higher end film production. Cinema shooters don’t usually complain much about audio connectors because they’re a lot more likely to record double system. Silicon Imaging’s (RIP) first camera didn’t even record audio… Blackmagic’s first cinema camera had 1/4″ TRS connectors, and didn’t even have audio meters! Come to think of it… I’m not sure Kinefinity camera can even capture audio.
Shawn