FORUMS: list search recent posts

'send to motion' in fxp x

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
sean miller
'send to motion' in fxp x
on Feb 13, 2012 at 2:09:32 pm

Anyone know of a good workflow for this using fxp x and motion 5?

I have a couple of clips midway through a timeline that need some elements masked out, I can't for the life of me work out how to send the clip to motion for masking then send it back to my fcpx timeline....

....I can always copy and paste the clips into new timelines, export, re import, but surely this is not the best method?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: 'send to motion' in fxp x
on Feb 13, 2012 at 6:07:10 pm

There is no send to motion at this time.

The manual process you have mentioned is about the only way at the moment.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

adam dewhirst
Re: 'send to motion' in fxp x
on Feb 14, 2012 at 12:38:45 am

i find that astounding and not a little disgraceful.


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: 'send to motion' in fxp x
on Feb 14, 2012 at 12:40:35 am

[adam dewhirst] "i find that astounding and not a little disgraceful.
"


You and the rest of the Internet. ;)


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: 'send to motion' in fxp x
on Feb 14, 2012 at 11:04:36 pm

It's why a healthy dose of shame is not a bad thing for people or corporations.

There is absolutely no excuse to streamline your offerings the way Apple did with the Final Cut Suite of Apps - and then literally disabling the ability for the two remaining apps to integrate.

It should have been the first thing that was addressed in an early fix and now they've got another upgrade and still no way to practically work between X and 5...absolutely absurd.

I mean people like us who are working professionally with X and do a lot of compositing and animation and 3D go from a wonderfully integrated system to one that costs us countless time and frustration trying to do basic work.

Shame on Apple.

And don't even talk about publishing.
Sure that's nice, but it has nothing to do with integrating FCPX workflow and projects with Motion 5.
Work out the critical details first - then release your programs, please.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: 'send to motion' in fxp x
on Feb 14, 2012 at 11:16:14 pm

[Jim Giberti] "And don't even talk about publishing.
Sure that's nice, but it has nothing to do with integrating FCPX workflow and projects with Motion 5.
Work out the critical details first - then release your programs, please."


It has been explained that what is happening here is that a Motion project and FCPX database are now completely different.

It will take some time to rewrite Motion so it complies with FCPX.

No excuse, but that's the way it is.


Return to posts index


Jim Giberti
Re: 'send to motion' in fxp x
on Feb 14, 2012 at 11:28:34 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "No excuse, but that's the way it is.
"


I'm certainly aware of the way it is.

These discussions are pretty much exclusively about the way it should be, hence the last sentence in my post.

And you're right, there really is no excuse.

I try and imagine explaining to a client how I stopped running a very successful campaign in order to run a obviously poorer campaign by comparison.

There should be a law (at least for companies with more money than the government) that they need to actually improve their products before releasing them as replacements.

I've got FXP 7 and X , Motion 4 and 5 running back and forth right now in a crazy schedule of redoing some spots, and releasing a bunch of new ones and as much as I like X, we're getting very close to going back to 7 and Motion 4 full time because of this.

Absolutely absurd position to put your actual proponents in.

Absolutely stupid for a group of visionaries.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: 'send to motion' in fxp x
on Feb 15, 2012 at 1:56:49 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "It has been explained that what is happening here is that a Motion project and FCPX database are now completely different. It will take some time to rewrite Motion so it complies with FCPX. No excuse, but that's the way it is."

I don't follow -- what is it about the FCPX database that seems to prohibit sending clips to Motion?

Also, I thought Motion 5 was itself a complete rewrite [link], and given that Motion is the FCPX effects engine, I would have thought they were developed in tandem.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: 'send to motion' in fxp x
on Feb 15, 2012 at 2:23:03 am

[Walter Soyka] "I don't follow -- what is it about the FCPX database that seems to prohibit sending clips to Motion?"

The project structure, which I called a database.


Andreas Kiel hinted to it a bit here: http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/22845


If you remember ;), FCP7 can import motion projects directly which seems to think that there's a commonality either in XML or some underlying structure.

From what I can tell, Motion was rewritten, but I don't know how far it's come. Most of it was probably for 64bit and the rigging structure.

Yes, you can publish effects from Motion which FCPX can read, but that is much different than importing a Motion project or exporting clips to motion. when you start motion, you have a choice of what to do, a project, a generator, a transition, etc. When you choose a "template", it saves them differently than just a .motn project. i don't know what the difference is, if any, but it seems to be different.

I would think that better FCPXML or AXEL or whatever needs to be added. With FCPXML being so young, perhaps the framework simply isn't there yet. That translation, (is it an effect? a generator? a text template?) probably still needs work along with the FCPXML.

What is encouraging is the rigging that's already there. It's hard to stay positive when there's obviously so much work to be done, but that rigging is impressive. If even more interaction can be had between motion and fcpx, it seems like it would be extremely cool. I really wish motion was simply a part of FCPX.

Jeremy


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: 'send to motion' in fxp x
on Feb 15, 2012 at 4:41:55 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Andreas Kiel hinted to it a bit here: http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/22845"

I read that differently. He also said, "So FCPX XML/Format and Motion XML/Format don't have have a big (if any) intersection at this time - but they didn't had one before as well."


[Jeremy Garchow] "If you remember ;), FCP7 can import motion projects directly which seems to think that there's a commonality either in XML or some underlying structure."

FCP7 didn't need to know anything about Motion's project file or data structures; it relied on a little bit of very cool QuickTime trickery.

Look in your Macintosh HD > Library > QuickTime folder, and you'll see a file called Motion.component. This component allows the system to present Motion files as QuickTime-accessible media, which were rendered on-the-fly (and under-the-hood) by the Motion rendering engine. Any QuickTime-aware application could "import" .MOTN files this way -- even After Effects [link].

Given that, maybe this is in part a casualty of the QuickTime/AVFoundation transition.


[Jeremy Garchow] "What is encouraging is the rigging that's already there. It's hard to stay positive when there's obviously so much work to be done, but that rigging is impressive. If even more interaction can be had between motion and fcpx, it seems like it would be extremely cool. I really wish motion was simply a part of FCPX."

Agreed -- the whole rigging/publishing system is simply brilliant.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: 'send to motion' in fxp x
on Feb 15, 2012 at 4:59:40 am

[Walter Soyka] "Look in your Macintosh HD > Library > QuickTime folder, and you'll see a file called Motion.component. This component allows the system to present Motion files as QuickTime-accessible media, which were rendered on-the-fly (and under-the-hood) by the Motion rendering engine. Any QuickTime-aware application could "import" .MOTN files this way"

That component did the work, then. I have an MXF component that does virtually the same thing for FCP7. It worked with Quicktime and basically married all of the disparate P2 information through XML, but presented the information to FCP via Quicktime.

So while it is certainly a function of Quicktime, the instructions that the component carries out are probably via some sort of language. In that link you sent, it said it gave him a flattened file, which means that the component is running a translation, it isn't simply saying motion is a codec.

And then going FROM FCPX to Motion is different again, as things need to be timed and layered and sorted which seems to indicate some sort of language that's being used. I don't know, it's speculation on my part, but QT components aren't available in FCPX as there's no QT API like there used to be.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: 'send to motion' in fxp x
on Feb 15, 2012 at 5:40:04 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "So while it is certainly a function of Quicktime, the instructions that the component carries out are probably via some sort of language. In that link you sent, it said it gave him a flattened file, which means that the component is running a translation, it isn't simply saying motion is a codec."

I think the Motion component was a frame server [link]. When the requesting application (be it FCP7, QuickTime Player, or in that example, AE) asks for the next frame of video from a .MOTN file, the Motion QT component directs the Motion engine to render that frame and then passes it back to the application as if it were any other piece of traditional media.

In other words, from FCP's or AE's perspective, it is very much like a codec (decoded by the QuickTime framework). From the component's perspective, and from the Motion renderer's perspective, yes, it's Motion's internal format, not pre-rendered video.

The brilliance of the old system was abstracting all that away from other apps, so they never had to know that they were using a Motion project; it just felt like a regular piece of media, just like any other .MOV file. By engineering the system well, integration came for free.


[Jeremy Garchow] "And then going FROM FCPX to Motion is different again, as things need to be timed and layered and sorted which seems to indicate some sort of language that's being used. I don't know, it's speculation on my part, but QT components aren't available in FCPX as there's no QT API like there used to be."

I'd buy that.

Here's some wild, baseless, utterly uninformed speculation of my own: maybe Apple initially developed XMEML for their own internal use for round-tripping with Motion/STP, before it took on a life of its own as general interchange.

All our speculation aside, though, I think Jim's right to call Apple out for this. It's not like the ProApps team found out that XMEML and QuickTime integration wouldn't work last June. Even if it's only temporary, this workflow gap is a step backward.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index


Daniel Rutledge
Re: 'send to motion' in fxp x
on Feb 17, 2012 at 9:28:06 pm

I'll go along with "I don't understand" but for different reasons. The way that I see it is that if you can publish all the parameters of various effects and behaviors, or add them to rigs, and these can all be controlled in Fcp X, then I don't understand why the two programs aren't completely integrated. In the months leading up to the release of Fcp x I had guessed that they would do what they did; strip elements of the suite and add them directly to the Fcp UI. But I assumed that Motion would be at the top of the list. It had failed as a competitor to After Effects, but as FCP user I used it a lot just for convenience. I figured that they would capitalize on that convenience. I guess I was expecting something like Smoke. I still don't know why the Motion UI can't open in FCP. Motion projects could be sort of like compound clips or Multicam clips. When you open a Multicam clip in the Angle Editor, it's like being back in a track based environment. It would be great to do the same with motion. I still hope this is where things are headed down the road.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]