Shawn Miller
1
COW Coin
Forum Replies Created
-
[David Mathis] “i have thought about dumping Photoshop when it be time to renew and move to Fusion, guess me has to wait. “
Why wait? There are several good options for node based compositing on the Mac platform. Since PixelConduit and Blender are free, there’s really no reason not to try them. 🙂
https://pixelconduit.com/index.html
https://www.sgo.es/mamba-fx/
https://www.blender.org/download/Shawn
-
[Andy Neil] “[Shawn Miller] “That is now officially my second favorite video about 3D rendering…. following slightly behind this classic:
”Well, I didn’t understand any of it, but it sure was entertaining.
Andy”
Yeah… that was heavy on the jargon, sorry about that. But trust me, the bit about everything having Fresnel… hilarious. 🙂
Shawn
-
Thanks Herb,
That is now officially my second favorite video about 3D rendering…. following slightly behind this classic:
Shawn
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.
-
[Charlie Austin] “[Shawn Miller] “[Charlie Austin] “But things like clip skimming (huge timesaver with lots of layers),”
I guess I don’t see the advantage in the context of compositing. Truthfully, I don’t even do much timeline scrubbing when trying to match the elements in a composite. I’m usually concerned with color, luminance, edges, etc at that point. ”
Well, for me, if I’ve got a dozen layers or something, it’s a real quick way to see a particular layer without enabling/disabling the clips above it. just shaves a little time off when working, but it adds up.
[Shawn Miller] “[Charlie Austin] “Compound clips vs nesting (similar, but different in implementation) etc.”
I confess that I don’t really understand compound clips… what makes them better (in your opinion) than nested sequences or comps for compositing?”
They’re not terribly different really, compound clips just seem easier to work with. less convoluted to decompose/recompose. Could just be me…
[Shawn Miller] “Are you saying that the FCPX timeline is more vertical than other timelines when compositing? 🙂 Kidding aside, I don’t understand what you mean here… aren’t FCPX, PPro, AE, Motion and Photoshop more alike than not in this regard? I mean, compared to something like Blender or Smoke. ”
Oh, absolutely. I bounce back and forth between Pr and X a lot and when doing the same things in both, it’s a much more pleasant experience in X. In Pr, there are way less built in effects/looks etc snd I feel like I need AE often (which I don’t rent) when working. But In X I rarely feel I need to go to Motion or something. I’m not doing super complex stuff though, so YMMV…”
So, it sounds like it’s more a matter of having tools that are more available and intuitive to you. Fair enough, it makes me wish I could jump into FCPX and try it for myself… just to know what you’re talking about. 🙂
Shawn
-
[Walter Soyka] “[Shawn Miller] “aren’t FCPX, PPro, AE, Motion and Photoshop more alike than not in this regard? I mean, compared to something like Blender or Smoke.”
Actually, Smoke has a vertical timeline compositing system in addition to its full 2D compositing environment (ConnectFX/Batch) and full 3D compositing environment (Action).
You can use timeline compositing for 2D or 3D compositing.
https://area.autodesk.com/blogs/kenl/smoke-2015-tutorial-3d-compositing-in-t...”
That is just slick.
Shawn
-
[Charlie Austin] “But things like clip skimming (huge timesaver with lots of layers),”
I guess I don’t see the advantage in the context of compositing. Truthfully, I don’t even do much timeline scrubbing when trying to match the elements in a composite. I’m usually concerned with color, luminance, edges, etc at that point.
[Charlie Austin] ” ability adjust transform parameters on groups of clips”
That is nice – AE has this feature, but its (sadly) missing in PPro.
[Charlie Austin] “Compound clips vs nesting (similar, but different in implementation) etc.”
I confess that I don’t really understand compound clips… what makes them better (in your opinion) than nested sequences or comps for compositing?
[Charlie Austin] ” But the X timeline is really well suited to working vertically.”
Are you saying that the FCPX timeline is more vertical than other timelines when compositing? 🙂 Kidding aside, I don’t understand what you mean here… aren’t FCPX, PPro, AE, Motion and Photoshop more alike than not in this regard? I mean, compared to something like Blender or Smoke.
Shawn
-
[Charlie Austin] “The compositing you can do in X makes Legacy (and Pr if you don’t have AE) look like a toy.”
Really, how so? Premiere Pro has a number of blending modes, trackable masks, adjustment layers, fairly decent matte tools, a solid key framing system (for an NLE) and native support for lookup tables. What gives FCPX the edge for compositing? Honestly asking, I had never seen FCPX used for compositing before today (referring to the video that Walter shared earlier).
Shawn
-
[Tim Wilson] “Isn’t that what FCP Legacy was? There was some very slick stuff there that I think most people never tapped into. Once you added a tiny handful of plug-ins, the compositing/animation capabilities were off the chain.
“Unfortunately, I missed the FCP boat. Just as I was seriously considering the Mac platform (because of Shake), Apple eol’d it. I found comfort in Vegas for compositing, mograph and audio mixing for a while, but quickly reached its limits, so I jumped over to Adobe fulltime. 🙂 Now, PPro has some decent compositing tools, and the Lumetri Color panel is nice… just a bit less than I wanted for grading. Resolve would be perfect if it had a better playback engine and design tools (IMO). So, overall, Tim I think your right… there probably aren’t enough editor/animator/compositor/mograph folks out there to make the effort of building a Smoke like tool worth it (for established software companies). I think there’s even less insentive for smaller players to try, because companies like BMD are giving premium software away for little or nothing.
[Tim Wilson] “Anyway, I think that Smoke on Mac offered exactly the environment you’re talking about, but I only know what I saw in demos. I’ll defer to astrophysicist, editor, and motion graphics researcher Professor Soyka to tell it like it is.”
Smoke was on my list for a while as well, but it never seemed to keep my attention long enough to consider picking up, so I would also be curious to hear Professor Soyka’s thoughts on the matter. 🙂
Shawn
-
Touché, Tim. All good points. I’m inclined to agree with you that “no one” needs 100% of the features in an NLE and 100% of the features of a composting and animation package (all the time). Though, I’m also willing to bet that many of us would like a decent, hybrid compositing/NLE/animation/color grading tool at least 50% of the time. Further, I suspect that’s a completely different conversation. 🙂 Lastly, I agree that there is absolutely no danger of BMD smooshing Fusion and Resolve into a single application… or Adobe “fusing” Premiere Pro and AE together.
Shawn
-
[Tim Wilson] “And as I’ve noted, the existence of somebody who needs the full range of feature sets and NOT named Walter Soyka is only theoretical, and otherwise easily disproved.”
//Shawn butting in
Neill Blomkamp (before he got famous), Andrew Kramer, Gareth Edwards (before he got famous), Freddy Wong and Ryan Connolly… I think the circle may be widening. 🙂
Shawn