Simon Ubsdell
6
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
[Tim Wilson] “It highlights a reality that I’ve never seen addressed at any length: the reverse shot is entirely unnatural. Literally. It can’t exist in nature, because it requires two simultaneous points of view.”
I do think you might be over-egging this.
If you have two actors sitting facing each other across a table, all the viewer is “effectively” doing is sitting at a third chair at right angles to them and moving his/her head from side to side with each cut, as in a tennis match. Yes, we accept some stretching of reality in that we’re seeing further round than we would if we were physically there, but it’s not a huge stretch. If we leaned right over the table so that we were more between the two actors then we would reduce the unnaturalness still further.
What shows this to be true is the discomfort we feel when the eyeline is not respected – what’s happened is that we’ve been jolted without warning to the other side of the table.
Obviously we have become accustomed to the stretching of reality here, so that we accept over the shoulder reverses, but I still think that instinctively we sense that we are occupying a viewing position between the two actors. (Over the shoulders on a long lens feel the most unnatural of all, of course …) Perhaps we feel that we are shifting our body position between cuts to accommodate the change of view?
All the cut is doing is eliminating the head movement (or torso movement or repositioning of our feet) that we would make. But this ellipsis is itself very natural – it’s a cognitive error not to realise that our brains see in snatches rather than in a continuous “recording”. Film cuts work because they emulate the way our brains see – rather than the way we think we see.
Cinematic conventions tend to stretch reality rather than as you are suggesting break with it altogether.
I would accept however that as the language has evolved it has allowed us to accept a greater degree of implausibility of viewpoint. There is a very bizarre convention that seems to me to be utterly unnatural when you have three people at a table to shoot between the heads of the actors sitting on the same side. To me that feels completely wrong and can result in serious spatial confusion. What’s happening there is breaking with the natural sense that you are sitting at the same table as the actors.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Brett Sherman] “I also get the sense that if I start using Motion in the same way as I use AE, I will run into roadblocks. “What do you mean Motion can’t do this or that.” or “Boy, I wish I had Optical Flares”.”
It’s only fair to mention that mFlare is a very decent flare package that compares to Optical Flares and works well inside Motion.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Jason Watson] “To me the feature set bump from Motion 3 to Motion 4 was pretty significant, and at the time I thought it portended more in regards to how Apple would be developing it. But when Motion 5 came out and the biggest update (from what I remember) was the rigging, I thought it was cool, but not being an FCPX user it seemed like the app was going in a direction other than I was.”
That’s an interesting point.
If you were a long time user of Motion, M5 was not the exciting leap forward that so many others seem to have seen it as. It was a disappointment in that it didn’t keep up the trajectory that we’d been expecting. And in many ways what it did was consign Motion to a much more secondary role. Subsequent Motion updates have been hugely underwhelming in terms of moving Motion forward as a product in its own right.
That’s not to underestimate the value of the whole rigging and publishing thing – it’s been a lot of fun. But rigging and publishing is primarily designed to get you into FCP X – it’s primary purpose is not to expand what you can do inside Motion. (Although, yes, it’s occasionally useful for that … very occasionally.)
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Doug Suiter] “”The fact is there is a vast constituency of Motion users, many of them young, who are doing great things with it – who don’t even own a copy of FCP X.”
Wow that’s interesting. I actually didn’t realise that.”
I know that probably sounds like a random claim, like so many that get bandied around here, but actually it’s based on hundreds of interactions with subscribers to my YT channel.
It often surprises me when I recommend using FCP X only to discover they don’t have it – and in some cases can’t afford it!
You’d have thought that Apple would eagerly seize on a committed young demographic like this but they don’t want to. Instead those young users of Motion will be graduating to Ae pretty soon and will be lost to the pro apps ecosystem … They’re unlikely to stick around using a product that shows very little sign of ongoing development and which Apple itself is only too happy to stigmatise.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
Broadly speaking, I agree with what you’re saying but …
[Doug Suiter] “I also feel frustrated about this, however in a way I think it’s smart of Apple to push Motion as a companion app.”
Yes, their decision makes sense. I just think it’s a great shame. If all you’re using Motion for is as a helper to FCP X, then frankly you’re barely using Motion at all. The fact is there is a vast constituency of Motion users, many of them young, who are doing great things with it – who don’t even own a copy of FCP X. Apple seem to have no interest in speaking to them – for reasons which no doubt make commercial sense too. But that’s a big wasted opportunity.
[Doug Suiter] “I’d say it’s because that’s what Motion does uniquely, that’s what they are pushing FCPX deep integration up front.”
It’s not that they’re pushing it “up front” – it’s that they’re not pushing anything else about Motion at all! Again, that’s a crying shame. FCP X integration is cool – but it’s just a tiny fraction of what you can do with Motion, as you know.
[Doug Suiter] “I read today a thread where people were talking about what they’d like to see with the next FCPX released. Someone said “Better PR and Communication”. In a heartbeat, I’d give back the last 12 months of FCPX releases for that.”
OK, so you wouldn’t give very much at all then 😉 (Just kidding.)
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Doug Suiter] “The thing is that so many people would be better off using Motion given what they actually use AE for. They under-estimate Motion’s capabilities and over-estimate their need for AE’s high end strengths. The result is this phenomenon of “Oh wow! I didn’t know Motion could do that…” which is a combination of Motion’s surprising power and their own over-estimation of what their own needs actually are.”
Although I hesitate to prejudge the complexity of other people’s workflows, my feeling is that this is very probably right on the money.
However, I have to reiterate that Apple really, really don’t help the perception of Motion. Here’s the headline text on the product page:
“An interface designed especially for editors. Smart templates for making changes on the fly during editing. And easy-to-use motion graphics tools for creating eye-catching titles, transitions and effects. Motion is the perfect companion to Final Cut Pro.”
Note the emphasis on this being a tool for editors – not motion graphics artists.
Note that it is a companion to Final Cut Pro – not a product in its own right.
Note that its only suggested uses are for titles, transitions and effects. (Amazing!)
Talk about limiting your market!
If the company selling the product are happy to belittle it to this degree, it’s small wonder that it’s not taken as seriously as it might be.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
Talking of numbers, I thought I’d have at look at the stats for my YouTube channel (which consists almost exclusively of Motion tutorials) which now has over 10,000 subscribers.
Obviously in terms of the installed user base for Motion that’s going to be a tiny sample and to some extent self-selecting (and skewed towards those who can understand English to a sufficient level) so I’m not suggesting these figures are in any way scientific.
Anyway, here are the topline figures.
The top 10 locations in order are US, Germany, UK, France, Japan, Canada, Italy, India, Netherlands and South Korea. (Interesting that Germany is in second place despite the language issue.)
The US represents only 33% of the total which is perhaps surprising.
The demographic is consistently around 90% male.
The age ranges differ considerably between different territories, but in the US they break down as follows:
13-17 -5.8%
18-24 – 14%
25-34 – 27%
35-44 – 25%
45-54 – 18%
55-64 – 6.4%
65+ = 3.8%The US has easily the highest proportion of under 18 year olds and, speaking anecdotally, many of these seem to have mastered Motion to a surprisingly high level.
25-34 seems to be the peak age group across most territories – this group is perhaps the likeliest to be using Motion in a work situation, though I would say again anecdotally that at least half of the adult users of Motion that I have come across on the channel are not video professionals and the number may well be a lot higher.
One of the most frequent comments is to express surprise at discovering what Motion can actually do. (Jason echoes this lower down this thread.) It would seem that Motion suffers from a perception problem generally and Apple don’t seem to want to do much to correct this inasmuch as they market it exclusively as an adjunct to FCP X.
One other thing that I’d note is that of those 10,000+ subscribers only one that I know of is a regular here on the COW – not quite sure what that means but it may mean something.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Bret Williams] “Maybe not plugins, with the exceptions of mObject”
mObject is a plug-in for FCP X that you can also use in Motion, but I bet that they sell 1000 units to FCP X-only customers to every one that they sell to someone who will only use it in Motion.
[Bret Williams] “Ripple is selling huge training courses in Motion”
Fair enough, Mark Spencer must feel there’s enough of a market there.
[Bret Williams] “MoitonVFX is completely Motion templates now, with plugins that work for both.”
Again, I would guess that their market is massively more FCP X than Motion exclusive.
[Bret Williams] “You really can’t use a template right in FCP X without making some changes in motion or just using it in motion.”
You’re a relatively rare Motion power user, I think.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Bret Williams] “I don’t really know a lot of people using it. But if not, who are all these companies dedicated to Motion/FCP X selling to? Ripple, MotionVFX, Pixel Film Studios, and countless others seem to be doing pretty well for themselves.”
They’re selling to FCP X users, not Motion users. Motion is a necessary wrapper for FCP X plug-ins but there is barely any market at all for Motion specific plug-ins … as far as I know.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Apple certainly isn’t doing anything to promote it.”
It’s becoming increasingly hard to argue that Motion exists as a product in its own right rather than merely as a necessary adjunct to FCP X of which it forms an integral part.
And I say that as someone who would really like this not to be the case.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com