Simon Ubsdell
6
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
[Bret Williams] “The problem is with custom title fx, presets, transitions (even changes to apple ones), generators, and effects. Apple gave us the ability to create our own, but there’s no management for such fx”
It may not be entirely what you’re asking for, but if you’re unfamiliar with it, I would definitely recommend that you check out Andreas Kiel’s extremely elaborate and well-thought out and free Motion Template Tool.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
-
Hi Bernard
Please feel free to email me your project and I’d be happy to take a look – see here for details of how to contact me.
https://tokyo-uk.com/fcpxeffects/support.html
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Rob Marty] “Im not able to find any settings in Motion for motion blur. Im running the latest version of Motion 5.2.2”
Go to your Project Pane (Cmd+J) and you can find the motion blur settings there where they have always been.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Charlie Austin] “Why not? if you’re shooting a feature, each day on set is an “Event” which generates dailies that are associated with it. I agree it is all semantics, but event, as it’s defined, is a correct term.”
Do you not think there is a remote possibility that the reason they chose the word Event was to maintain continuity with iPhoto where it was and is the main organisational term … rather than that, quite fortuitously and without remembering that they’d already coined it for iPhoto, they came up with the same naming convention because it was so obviously just right for video editing?
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Walter Soyka] “I think I derailed this one a bit.
“Derailing is great – I love derailing. That’s where all the great ideas come from.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Walter Soyka] “Not just the blending operation, but the blending operands.”
Yes, very much so.
I wasn’t disagreeing with your excellent analysis – just pointing out that Over is not the only known dissolve blending operation. But yes, your simplification made sense in the overall context of the discussion.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Walter Soyka] “That’s funny; a dissolve is just “over””
I hope you won’t mind me pointing out that this is a bit of an over-simplification, even as regards the most common implementations of the dissolve in the applications we are familiar with. Certainly Over is one way of doing it and is probably what most people think of as what’s happening, but it’s far from being the only way.
The way I see it, a dissolve requires three things: a) a blending operation to determine how the pixels of the two overlapping layers interact; b) a means of handling the alpha channels of the two images, if present; and c) one or two sets of animation curves that determine the rate of the transition.
This being the case, it’s not difficult to see that there are a huge number of ways in which a dissolve could be implemented. For example, any of the commonly used blend modes will yield workable results and allow for many different looks but clearly one could devise custom blend modes for even more complex results. FCP X offers a pretty wide range of these kinds of options, some better-looking than others. Obviously how the pixels are blended will greatly impact on which appear more persistent than others – in fact the blending operation will have a greater impact than the animation curve a lot of the time.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
Great answer, Walter, thank you!
I guess I was thinking more about the alternative universe and what one might like a “track-layer” to look like, rather than the more obviously impractical in this universe task of converting Ae to work in “track-layers”. The reason I brought this up was in answer to David’s point that it couldn’t be done – obviously he’s right that there are insurmountable obstacles to doing it with the application we know as After Effects, as you’ve explained so well, but to what extent is it theoretically impossible/impractical?
[Walter Soyka] “The data model is the core of an application and it defines the limits of an application’s extensibility.”
Yes, this is clearly an important insight – all too easily overlooked in discussions about how we’d like our applications to evolve.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
Thanks for your very interesting reply.
[David Lawrence] “A single layer can only hold a single instance of a media object.”
I think my hesitation here would be that this is describing the way things are in, for example, After Effects rather than the way things might be in a parallel universe where Adobe rewrote it from the ground up, which is what I was speculating about. I was wondering if it is genuinely not possible (even theoretically) to have “layers” that held multiple clips in the exact same way that “tracks” do.
Walter would know 😉
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com
