Stefan Buhrmester
Forum Replies Created
-
I hear you man.
I’m a hobbyist. I worked with FCP7 and Motion for a long long time. I do not need the pro features like XML, multicam, etc.
Even for me as hobbyist FCPX is unusable for two reasons:
- Can neither import motion files, nor “send-to-motion” anymore. Only “publishing” from within motion is available. Worst. Workflow. Ever.
- Can only operate on a limited set of resolutions. Try to create a project that is 1024×576 squared. IMPOSSIBLE!
If they fix these two limitations, I’m happy.
And a lot of usability issues, for example no blend mode settings in the context menu.
-
+1
-
LOL. Please, stop suggesting publishing my motion files as generators. I know you’re trying to help. But that is the worst and most hilarious workflow I’ve ever seen. You really want us to open Motion 5 for each and every motion clip we want to import, manually clicking through the publishing dialog, have it copy all the media to an arbitrary folder on my disc, losing all references to the original source media, only to have it show up in an global -not project specific- library of generators?
No.
If we want to keep working with Motion files efficiently, there is no other way than to stick with FCP7. Open Finder -> Drag to Import -> Done. Come on Apple… Please add motion import to FCPX.
-
Nope. You can’t. You cannot even import a motion file into your bin (or event library).
-
Ah, alright then. It seemed to me as if you were defending the missing functionality 🙂
-
Hey Mark…
Sorry, I fail to understand how the addition of Publishing as Generators, Transitions, etc, serves as an argument for removing the functionality to use motion files as media sources. It does not make any sense. Of course I like the ADDITIONAL publishing functionality, but not at the cost of removing standard importing functionality.
Say you created an image in illustrator and want to import it to photoshop for final retouches. But Adobe removes the functionality to import the image. Instead, you need to “Publish” the image you created to a global library, that is stored in an arbitrary location on your hard disk. It would be the same bull*hit.
-
As I just posted in reply to a post before your’s, I would not view projects as a substitute for sequences.
Here is how your setup would look in FCPX:
You import your media file and put it into an Event. Events are the new way to group media files together.
You have ONE project (not 16).
You create 16 compound clips based on your media.
These compound clips can be used in your project just like sequences can be used in FCP7.
-
Sorry, I disagree. This is why I believe that Compound Clips are the equivalent substitute for Sequences. Not Projects:
FCP7 Sequence FCPX Compound Clip FCPX Project
Has it's own timeline Yes Yes Yes
Viewed in Media-/Event Browser Yes Yes No
Can be dragged into a project Yes Yes No
Can be edited like a media file Yes Yes No
-
I never experienced a long lag in Motion 5, while having the same system specs. Motion 5 starts faster than Motion 4. Time to load a blank project is about a second. Can you reproduce the lag?
[Alan McCormick] “How is everyone else experiencing Motion 5 opening up directly and not via FCP X?”
This has baffled me: “via FCP X”. I am DYING for send-to-motion or importing motion in FCP X. Have you found something?
-
You can always create a new compound clip directly inside the event browser. That’s the closest you get to FCP7 sequences.