FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCPX and Fusion

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
David Mathis
FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 4:33:40 am

After playing around with the Fusion page in Resolve and Fusion itself I find myself enjoying a node based workflow even more. I feel it allows for more creativity with title work and adding spice to a shot. I have nothing against Motion or After Effects as both have their place. For some reason layers feel more in the way though they have their place as well. I also love the particle emitter and the expressions. Is it just me or do others feel the same way? Love to hear your thoughts. After all this is a debate forum! 😉


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 1:50:02 pm

Interesting that Motion is so "track" based. Perhaps Apple will some day shock us by paying attention to Motion in some radical fashion. Motion is still very "legacy" in design.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 2:29:44 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Perhaps Apple will some day shock us by paying attention to Motion in some radical fashion. Motion is still very "legacy" in design"

Does anyone know if there even is a Motion engineering team any longer? At least in terms of further development beyond just supporting the underpinnings of FCPX.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 3:10:32 pm

I guess I thought it worked the other way. New features are created in Motion, and then supported by the included motion "engine" in FCPX. Many new features of Motion that aren't "in" FCPX like Fill and Overshoot but they can be published. Other newish features like Align to behaviors are only in Motion but utilized by plugins. I'd guess it's a very small team or may simply be the same team.

_______________________________________________________________________
http://BretFX.com FCPX Plugins & Templates for Editors & Motion Graphics Artists
Hang Tag http://bretfx.com/product/hang-tag
Overshoot Text http://bretfx.com/product/overshoot-text/
Outliner http://bretfx.com/product/outliner/
Clock Maker http://bretfx.com/product/bretfx-clock-maker/


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 3:23:00 pm

[Bret Williams] "I guess I thought it worked the other way."

It's hard to say how it works. For example, if you bring in ProResRAW content into Motion, the levels are wrong with default settings, yet they are correct in FCPX. But you can't even open those same files in Compressor.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 3:32:29 pm

Sounds like the same functionality that would bring color correction to Motion. Would be nice to have those tools in Motion. But I think more and more Apple is moving toward Motion and nothing but a plugin creation tool. There has been talk over on FB forums about Motion only being 8bit possibly. I hadn't even thought of that. But it might make sense that they're not worried about supporting codecs or color depth or color tools since they're not expecting much video use in Motion anymore. They're expecting you to use drop zones or video integration only through publishing and rendering through FCPX where those things are supported. Dropping video out was the first big sign to me.

_______________________________________________________________________
http://BretFX.com FCPX Plugins & Templates for Editors & Motion Graphics Artists
Hang Tag http://bretfx.com/product/hang-tag
Overshoot Text http://bretfx.com/product/overshoot-text/
Outliner http://bretfx.com/product/outliner/
Clock Maker http://bretfx.com/product/bretfx-clock-maker/


Return to posts index


Timothy Dewey
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 5:32:32 pm

I love Apple Motion 5, but am conflicted with it’s future. On one hand, Tim Cooks expressed interest in AR, and recent updates to Final Cut Pro X and Motion focuses on 360 video. One would think Motion would be a prime candidate for this new area of media we’re entering. Also, Final Cut Pro X relies on Motion for elaborate titles and effects.

On the other hand, you hear very little about Motion and Apple doesn't’ seem to push it much. Many people are unaware Motion even exists, and I don’t think I have ever seen Motion offered in Apple’s Pro series classes in their stores. Anything I’ve learned about Motion came from Ripple Training, the manual, or Simon, which is a shame, because Motion is an incredible piece of software for only 50.00 smackers, and contributes a lot to Final Cut Pro X. Also, it doesn't help with the latest updates many bugs have been introduced, especially with the replicators.


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 6:08:02 pm

Yes.

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 6:09:17 pm

"Yes" was in reply to Oliver's question.

- Ronny


Return to posts index


Ronny Courtens
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 6:14:27 pm

And I would like to add that there is much more interest in Motion than some people may think. At one of our FCPX Tours, Robin S. Kurz did a Motion introduction. The video got over 40,000 views on our channel and is still one of the most popular videos there.

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 3:19:11 pm

Why does that make it legacy? 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. So instead of having dedicated tracks, you end up with little piles as you go along the timeline. Each pile is akin to it's own little motion (or AE) composition where you can drag the layers up and down and the others just get out of the way. Just seems so logical if you've ever worked in AE, PS, or Motion.

_______________________________________________________________________
http://BretFX.com FCPX Plugins & Templates for Editors & Motion Graphics Artists
Hang Tag http://bretfx.com/product/hang-tag
Overshoot Text http://bretfx.com/product/overshoot-text/
Outliner http://bretfx.com/product/outliner/
Clock Maker http://bretfx.com/product/bretfx-clock-maker/


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 4:51:44 pm

There's an argument that clip connections are a rudimentary form of nodal connection. Such might be an interesting idea if that were the basis of changes to Motion.



Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 6:45:59 pm

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.

_______________________________________________________________________
http://BretFX.com FCPX Plugins & Templates for Editors & Motion Graphics Artists
Hang Tag http://bretfx.com/product/hang-tag
Overshoot Text http://bretfx.com/product/overshoot-text/
Outliner http://bretfx.com/product/outliner/
Clock Maker http://bretfx.com/product/bretfx-clock-maker/


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 6:48:20 pm

[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



Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 6:12:36 pm
Last Edited By Shawn Miller on May 30, 2018 at 6:16:58 pm

[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 :-)


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 6:49:35 pm

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.

_______________________________________________________________________
http://BretFX.com FCPX Plugins & Templates for Editors & Motion Graphics Artists
Hang Tag http://bretfx.com/product/hang-tag
Overshoot Text http://bretfx.com/product/overshoot-text/
Outliner http://bretfx.com/product/outliner/
Clock Maker http://bretfx.com/product/bretfx-clock-maker/


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 7:01:32 pm

[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



Return to posts index

Tero Ahlfors
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 4:29:39 pm

Node based compositing works really well in a situation where you are comping together a CG shot from a lot of passes that are used and reused a lot. It's easy to group different parts and keep them in check. For motion graphics I prefer the track based temporal view versus the node based spatial view of the whole comp.


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 6:52:46 pm

I’m no expert on nodes, but that’s what I always wondered. Looks great for routing and connections due to is visual nature of showing flow. But it does seem to be pretty lacking in showing the temporal. Keyframes, stops and starts, etc. Maybe better for color correction and compositing but less so for motion graphics?

_______________________________________________________________________
http://BretFX.com FCPX Plugins & Templates for Editors & Motion Graphics Artists
Hang Tag http://bretfx.com/product/hang-tag
Overshoot Text http://bretfx.com/product/overshoot-text/
Outliner http://bretfx.com/product/outliner/
Clock Maker http://bretfx.com/product/bretfx-clock-maker/


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 7:07:02 pm

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. 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. Say you are doing a blur effect or adding text. You may want to cycle through a couple of varations of different styles, looks or fonts. You can easily disable a node at anytime. With that said layers will always have their advantages. I guess nodes for me are more of a personal choice. The downside to Fusion is playback requires some rendering. Motion gives real time playback or something pretty darn close. I still love Motion but worried about what is in store for it at times.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 7:37:27 pm

[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



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 7:46:15 pm

[Bret Williams] "I’m no expert on nodes, but that’s what I always wondered. Looks great for routing and connections due to is visual nature of showing flow. But it does seem to be pretty lacking in showing the temporal. Keyframes, stops and starts, etc. Maybe better for color correction and compositing but less so for motion graphics?"

This is an argument I always have a lot of problems coming to terms with, although you hear it a lot.

Fusion (as an example of a node-based compositor) has a deep and powerful timeline structure where temporal manipulation is every bit as easy as it would be in After Effects or similar (as in this extremely simple example that I happened to have to hand):



Adjusting keyframes (and the timing of clips) in Timeline mode is exactly the same as it would be in After Effects.

And of course, you also have a Spline view where again there's really no difference from Ae:



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.)

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 8:12:01 pm

[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



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 9:05:37 pm

[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.

Obviously they don't match After Effects in every single respect but they are are pretty deep and flexible.

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.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 9:19:14 pm

Obviously there are slight differences of emphasis as you would expect between any two compositing solutions but I'd suggest it's much more true to say that After Effects is a compositor without nodes than to say that Fusion is a compositor without layers.

To me the real difference still lies in the fact that After Effects is geared more towards motion graphics and Fusion/Nuke are dedicated compositing solutions. The node/layer distinction is a relatively trivial difference by comparison.

I would add that transforming Fusion into a more motion graphics-friendly offering would be a much simpler proposition than converting After Effects to a compositor that could genuinely compete with its node-based rivals. That said, there is a vast overlap between what you can actually achieve in practice with a bit of flexibility.

But this is where we really need Walter to illuminate the bigger picture and we don't have him any more.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on Jun 8, 2018 at 12:28:16 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "But this is where we really need Walter to illuminate the bigger picture and we don't have him any more."

Flattery will get you nowhere. I'm still here, so you have to hang around, too!


[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."

I think that nodal compositors represent very directly the way that they work under-the-hood; layer-based compositors abstract away those detailed mechanics of compositing. This presents a trade-off: operational speed and simplicity in many common compositing tasks, for flexibility and power.

(Please note that there's a crossover point in project complexity where a layer-based system's relative lack of flexibility and power actually flips the equation, and also costs you operational speed and simplicity!)

So I might have to agree with Simon. Layer-based compositors DO seem to have fewer options. They tend to lock you into fixed render pipelines while nodal compositors software leave that pipeline entirely to the operator's discretion. They tend to make media/mask/matte reuse difficult. They tend to make monitoring context throughout the comp difficult. That can be a lot to give away for an interactive 2D representation of compositing order versus time.

To Simon's other point, though, I wonder how many of these problems are truly intrinsic to layered compositing, and how many are just bad UX.

Mistika has a really interesting feature that allows the operator to toggle comps back and forth freely between a layer view and a node view. It's the same comp, the same tools, the same results... just different representations of that same setup to make different manipulations easier.

(It's also worth mentioning that Mistika's timeline implementation is unique: they refer to their timeline as a three-dimensional "timespace." And while we're off this topic and on that one, Mistika also has a feature called Graffiti that lets you draw notes on your timeline, which Alan Bell might appreciate.)


[Simon Ubsdell] "To me the real difference still lies in the fact that After Effects is geared more towards motion graphics and Fusion/Nuke are dedicated compositing solutions. The node/layer distinction is a relatively trivial difference by comparison. I would add that transforming Fusion into a more motion graphics-friendly offering would be a much simpler proposition than converting After Effects to a compositor that could genuinely compete with its node-based rivals."

I'd be really interested in exploring this more. If not layers, what is it you'd say makes Ae so well suited for motion graphics and so poorly suited for compositing?

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 9:50:30 pm

[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



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 10:01:07 pm

[Shawn Miller] " I think the Adobe way of handling keyframes is somewhat unique to AE (single and double click access to keyframes in the layer stack)"

Agreed.

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.

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?

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.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 30, 2018 at 10:35:42 pm

[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



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 31, 2018 at 8:57:05 am
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on May 31, 2018 at 8:58:38 am

[Shawn Miller] "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?"

Yes, it would be completely wrong to say that Nuke/Fusion/AfterEffects/Motion have tracks rather than layers - although of course I just did exactly that ☹

None of these applications allow you to have more than one source image on the same Timeline "lane" - what defines tracks is exactly that they allow multiple image items sequentially on the same "lane".

(Of course you could create "virtual tracks" in any of these applications by grouping (or in Ae by precomping). You can then manipulate multiple sequential events on the timeline ...)

I suppose it's easy to elide tracks and layers when thinking about layer-based compositing because layer-based compositing feels the same as track-based compositing - what is above is composited over what is below. This is not true of node-based compositing where the vertical timeline order is not relevant. But yes, layers are definitely not tracks.

[Shawn Miller] "I see tracks as immovable time-based object containers, and layers as containers for time independent objects."

That's a nice description of tracks, but I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean by a "time independent object".

In Nuke/Fusion each node (tool) is a layer. The consequence of this is that not only can you change the timing of a clip (in and out points and position in time), you can also move the overall timing of any operation up and down the Timeline as well as its individual keyframes, without having to invoke a Graph Editor.

In Motion you can do the same - filters are objects in the Timeline that can be manipulated in time just like any other layer.

In After Effects to achieve the same result you need to use Adjustment Layers. (Or the Graph Editor, but takes us into different territory.)

In each of these cases moving a layer on the Timeline allows you to move the timing associated with it, namely its animation. The layer contains timing information that travels with it.

But I've probably not grasped your definition properly.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 31, 2018 at 10:48:51 am
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on May 31, 2018 at 10:55:18 am

One other point that might be worth adding to this discussion is that it's not necessarily a good idea to focus on one specific application to extrapolate general rules about what is and is not possible for applications of that type.

We tend to use After Effects as the benchmark for what a layer-based compositor can look like, but in doing so we miss things.

And we can see what those are by looking at Motion (originally conceived as a competitor to Ae although that's an ambition long since abandoned).

Most After Effects users are so accustomed to Precomps that they probably assume this is the only away of approaching grouping. Motion by contrast uses Groups in place of the Precomp concept and it's a much more open way of working. A Precomp is essentially a closed container and we have to work around that in various ways, whereas a Motion Group is an open container and that offers considerable benefits. In other words, in Motion you can access (not simply view) the overall architecture of the composition without having to dive into closed containers.

You could say this architectural "openness" is a lot closer to a nodal way of working in that the cross-routing of layers and tools is much more instantly achievable.

Another obvious example of this sort of difference is to compare Track Mattes in Ae with Masking in Motion. In Ae a Track Matte source layer has to be adjacent in the layer stack, whereas In Motion you can access any layer or group as the source of the "matte" regardless of its position in the layer stack. It's a massive difference and much more node-like in practice.

But there's an even bigger and more powerful difference and that lies in Motion's use of Clones. These are very little understood even by many Motion users so here's a basic primer:







A Clone can use both layers and groups as it source, it will update to reflect any changes to anything that is routed to it, and its contents can be reassigned at will.

That might sound a trivial thing but it's extremely significant in practice. And it's a very node-like concept in that it allows for very powerful and flexible routing that very much transcends the limitations of the layer-based model.

There are many things to admire about Motion (still, despite its practical obsolescence from a development point of view) but the Clone concept is genuinely a stroke of genius.

All of which is to reinforce the point that there is much more of a continuum between After Effects/Motion and Fusion/Nuke than is generally recognised.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Neil Sadwelkar
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 31, 2018 at 12:17:26 pm

I find it interesting that each clip on Resolve's edit page timeline could have a Fusion comp associated with it and which can be 'called' instantly just by switching to the Fusion page. So, the Resolve timeline is actually a 'string-out' or a sequential collection of Fusion node trees.

Besides, the Edit page of Resolve provides a basic track-based compositor for anyone wishing to composite with tracks.

So Resolve-Fusion seems to be the 'convergence' (not sure if its the right term) of tracks and nodes. And one can work in either, or both but within the same software.

-----------------------------------
Neil Sadwelkar
neilsadwelkar.blogspot.com
twitter: fcpguru
FCP Editor, Edit systems consultant
Mumbai India


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 31, 2018 at 6:29:37 pm
Last Edited By Shawn Miller on May 31, 2018 at 6:36:25 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Most After Effects users are so accustomed to Precomps that they probably assume this is the only away of approaching grouping. Motion by contrast uses Groups in place of the Precomp concept and it's a much more open way of working. A Precomp is essentially a closed container and we have to work around that in various ways, whereas a Motion Group is an open container and that offers considerable benefits. In other words, in Motion you can access (not simply view) the overall architecture of the composition without having to dive into closed containers."

I definitely agree here - I think Motion works more like Photoshop in this way. Pre-comping is a terrible way to organize compositions. That's what I like most about working with nodes... finding and reusing assets is SO much easier than digging through layers.

[Simon Ubsdell] "But there's an even bigger and more powerful difference and that lies in Motion's use of Clones. These are very little understood even by many Motion users so here's a basic primer:"

This is another big pet peeve of mine about AE. A powerful cloning tool should be a no-brainer - but for some reason, Adobe has left it for third party plugin developers. In truth, I thought the Trapcode plugin was really good, until I started using the cloner tool in Cinema 4D. Now, the exclusion of that capability just seems like a monumental oversight on Adobe's part (to me).

Shawn



Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on Jun 2, 2018 at 4:21:42 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] " Motion by contrast uses Groups in place of the Precomp concept and it's a much more open way of working. A Precomp is essentially a closed container and we have to work around that in various ways, whereas a Motion Group is an open container and that offers considerable benefits.

But there's an even bigger and more powerful difference and that lies in Motion's use of Clones. These are very little understood even by many Motion users so here's a basic primer:"


This is exactly right. As someone who came to Motion from AE (really to make templates for FCP X). The grouping and cloning really amaze me with their power. It's also head scratching that AE hasn't copied it. It makes me wonder if they simply are unable to with the code base they have. My guess is that AE will never have grouping as the complexity of the product increases for every feature that is tacked on.

Of course, Motion's power is occasionally undone with flakiness. For example it wouldn't let me link a parameter (Z-position) to the layer I was using for an Image Mask. Why? No good reason, it just didn't work. I could go on and on about inexplicable flakiness. And often there is that effect you need that is simply just not there.

So if Apple intends it to be primarily for Template development, Motion would be well-served with more robust scripting - how about an if/else capability? And better temporal controls other than the "Ramp" single parameter control.

I do think Motion suffers from a lack of resources dedicated to it by Apple.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on Jun 3, 2018 at 11:50:49 pm

AE already has clones for the most part. They’re just precomps. There are some slight differences, but what do you use clones for mostly? To make duplicates of a group that are always the same as the group. Well, that’s what compositions ARE in AE. You want to clone a comp in AE, you just duplicate the comp. All duplicates link back to the same comp. Clones are a necessity in Motion because of Motion’s short falling that it doesn’t have multiple compositions.

_______________________________________________________________________
http://BretFX.com FCPX Plugins & Templates for Editors & Motion Graphics Artists
Hang Tag http://bretfx.com/product/hang-tag
Overshoot Text http://bretfx.com/product/overshoot-text/
Outliner http://bretfx.com/product/outliner/
Clock Maker http://bretfx.com/product/bretfx-clock-maker/


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on Jun 4, 2018 at 2:36:35 am

[Bret Williams] "AE already has clones for the most part. They’re just precomps. There are some slight differences, but what do you use clones for mostly? To make duplicates of a group that are always the same as the group. Well, that’s what compositions ARE in AE. You want to clone a comp in AE, you just duplicate the comp. All duplicates link back to the same comp. Clones are a necessity in Motion because of Motion’s short falling that it doesn’t have multiple compositions."

I can't speak for Simon, but when I think about cloning, it has more to do with having control over an array of objects using a set of controls in a plugin or tool - like Trapcode's PlaneSpace.

https://www.redgiant.com/products/planespace/

I would like something even more powerful in AE, like Cinema 4D's cloner object.







Shawn



Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on Jun 4, 2018 at 8:31:51 pm

Group layers are to Motion what Pre Comps are to AE. Clones are duplicates of anything. Which doesn’t really translate into AE other than multiple instances of the same Pre Comp.

Clone/Group layers are a little more than Precomps. The main power is that they are in your composition. Whereas a Precomp lives outside your composition and layers within it can’t interact with elements in the composition, such as masking layers. And, of course, you’re always flying blind with a Precomp. No way to see how changes affect the final Comp. The other really powerful feature of clones has to do with templates. The source of the clone layer can be changed with a rig, like a drop down box. For example, one template I did recently was a grid with various wipe shapes to bring it in. I used clones to select the wipe shape with a drop down box.

The short falling of Motion not having multiple Comps to me doesn’t have anything to do with Precomps. More that sometimes a project has more than one output and its better to keep it contained in one Project. I just can’t think of a way Group layers are not superior to Precomps.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on Jun 7, 2018 at 11:29:17 pm

[Brett Sherman] "Clones are duplicates of anything. Which doesn’t really translate into AE other than multiple instances of the same Pre Comp."

Yes. Clone layers in Motion are like wiring extra outputs off from a node in a nodal compositor -- a way of saying "that layer that's down there in the layer stack should ALSO contribute its output up here in the layer stack."

What C4D calls "Cloners" are known in Motion as "Replicators."


[Brett Sherman] "The short falling of Motion not having multiple Comps to me doesn’t have anything to do with Precomps. More that sometimes a project has more than one output and its better to keep it contained in one Project. I just can’t think of a way Group layers are not superior to Precomps."

The advantage of a Group is that it's not a separate, project-level container. The advantage of a precomp is that it IS a separate, project-level container. One gives you direct access to its contents, the other gives you clean re-use. I think they both have significant strengths and weaknesses in different situations.


[Brett Sherman] "Precomp lives outside your composition and layers within it can’t interact with elements in the composition, such as masking layers. And, of course, you’re always flying blind with a Precomp. No way to see how changes affect the final Comp. "

The latest release of After Effects includes a massive new feature that will totally change the way people work in Ae, once people start discovering it: master properties. You can expose some properties inside of a precomp as external properties when it's used as a layer in other comps. Essentially, you can now instance and rig comps inside of Ae:
https://helpx.adobe.com/after-effects/using/creating-motion-graphics-templa...

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on Jun 10, 2018 at 2:43:03 pm

[Walter Soyka] The advantage of a precomp is that it IS a separate, project-level container.

To me that's not an advantage of a Precomp, but rather an advantage of being able to have multiple Compositions within a Project, which everyone admits is a weakness with Motion. In Motion, you can solo a Group Layer and set your view to an orthogonal view which is basically the same as working with an isolated Precomp in AE. Or you can edit it in context of everything else in the Composition. AE works only in one way.

[Walter Soyka] The latest release of After Effects includes a massive new feature that will totally change the way people work in Ae, once people start discovering it: master properties. You can expose some properties inside of a precomp as external properties when it's used as a layer in other comps. Essentially, you can now instance and rig comps inside of Ae:

Interesting. This is a powerful feature. If a bit time-consuming to set up. For repeated uses this is great.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on Jun 11, 2018 at 2:30:45 pm

[Brett Sherman] "To me that's not an advantage of a Precomp, but rather an advantage of being able to have multiple Compositions within a Project, which everyone admits is a weakness with Motion. In Motion, you can solo a Group Layer and set your view to an orthogonal view which is basically the same as working with an isolated Precomp in AE. Or you can edit it in context of everything else in the Composition. AE works only in one way."

Maybe we're saying the same thing, then?

With only a single composition in Motion, there is no need at all for precomps. However, since Ae can have as many comps in a project as you like, a precomp becomes a valuable organizational tool: a way to cleanly reuse and update a common element across as many other comps as you wish.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on May 31, 2018 at 6:05:55 pm
Last Edited By Shawn Miller on May 31, 2018 at 6:34:55 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Yes, it would be completely wrong to say that Nuke/Fusion/AfterEffects/Motion have tracks rather than layers - although of course I just did exactly that ☹"

No worries, I had a feeling that you meant to say layers. ☺

[Simon Ubsdell] "[Shawn Miller] "I see tracks as immovable time-based object containers, and layers as containers for time independent objects."

That's a nice description of tracks, but I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean by a "time independent object".

In Nuke/Fusion each node (tool) is a layer. The consequence of this is that not only can you change the timing of a clip (in and out points and position in time), you can also move the overall timing of any operation up and down the Timeline as well as its individual keyframes, without having to invoke a Graph Editor"


My thinking (broadly) is that objects inside of a layer container don't' have the kind of intrinsic temporal relationships that objects inside of a track or a timeline do... i.e., in a layer container, you can't use object A to (temporally) split object B and move everything before the split left (backward) in time and everything after the split right (forward) in time. ☺ (sidenote: thinking about it, you can't really even split layers, you can only duplicate and trim them) Objects inside of a layer have their own independent temporal properties (duration, or sometimes frame rate) but they can't interact on a temporal level with other objects in that layer.

I hope that makes sense. ☺

[Simon Ubsdell] "But I've probably not grasped your definition properly."

It's okay, I think I've done a terrible job of explaining what I mean! ☺

Shawn



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on Jun 3, 2018 at 9:12:32 pm

Would you be able to create this type of animated video with Fusion or Motion?













- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on Jun 6, 2018 at 12:08:46 pm
Last Edited By Brett Sherman on Jun 6, 2018 at 12:38:18 pm

Given the way he built the 3D models manually with layers, I don't think you could do this with Motion. The Bezier tool in Motion doesn't work in 3D space. With a different process using mObject, you could likely do it. But this is a pretty specific example that really only requires that one "trick" of drawing in 3D space.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on Jun 7, 2018 at 5:44:51 am

I came across an interesting post yesterday in Resolve user group on Facebook and thought I would share it here. Definitely a very useful and time saving feature when utilized properly. Not sure whether to call it a child parent relationship as in After Effects but very interesting.






Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on Jun 7, 2018 at 11:44:24 am

Also from last year, his Fusion for AE artists presentation.







- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on Jun 7, 2018 at 4:42:24 pm
Last Edited By Shawn Miller on Jun 7, 2018 at 4:42:57 pm

[David Mathis] " Not sure whether to call it a child parent relationship as in After Effects but very interesting."

This is different from parenting... a node stack is a chain of nodes. Sometimes, people just call it "the stack". ☺

Shawn



Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: FCPX and Fusion
on Jun 7, 2018 at 7:32:22 pm

I do like the instances feature which was what I was inquiring about but agree with what you said. So many cool things about Fusion.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2018 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]