FORUMS: list search recent posts

Why no "Send To Motion"?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 12:51:52 am

Dynamic Link between Premiere Pro and After Effects is one of the biggest selling points for the editors migrating to Premiere Pro. ClipExporter can do FCP X to AE for FREE. Why is it that Apple can't manage to reinstate "send to Motion" from inside FCP X?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 1:10:10 am

[Oliver Peters] "Why is it that Apple can't manage to reinstate "send to Motion" from inside FCP X?"

My guess is that will return with Logic Pro X. My thinking is that round tripping can't be completed until they figure out how it's going to work from the audio side as well and that may not be locked down until they've got that working in Logic Pro X.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 1:18:26 am

I would tend to agree with you, though I'm not sure how one relates to the other.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 1:31:42 am

[Oliver Peters] "though I'm not sure how one relates to the other."

I think audio is the issue. Just my hunch. Of course one might argue there's no compelling reason to send complex audio to Motion but I think this is a case of Apple taking the more difficult path because they want what they want.

In my own thinking, it's also related to why we have no Gang option in the new Dual Viewers. Obviously we know Apple can Gang clips because it's there in Multicam. So want might as why didn't they add a feature that they already can program for. My own hunch in this regard is around the use of the scopes.

You can know have scopes for both viewers. They don't even have to be the same scope. What I think they're stuck on is they can't get two scopes to playback in real time without losing resolution because of the heavy system demands the scopes have. It's probably similar to why you can't have multiple scopes open for any viewer. My guess is that Apple wants multiple scope real time playback without lose of quality. When they can solve that or when they give up and decide degraded real time scope playback is OK, we'll see a Gang function in the Dual Viewers.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 2:14:29 am

[Craig Seeman] "I think audio is the issue. Just my hunch. Of course one might argue there's no compelling reason to send complex audio to Motion but I think this is a case of Apple taking the more difficult path because they want what they want."

I think I am missing something. What do you see Send to Motion doing that it would require this?

I think Send to Motion has be very simple and single-clip based (to avoid having to reconcile the two different timeline models). Open the clip from the timeline (trimmed? with handles? the whole clip with a IOPs set?) in Motion, then replace the instance in the timeline with the output of the Motion project.

I would have guessed that the problem is that Apple has to reinvent their entire interchange infrastructure (having deprecated EMXML and the Quicktime-based .MOTN renderer), and that Send to Motion was a low priority, given the otherwise-awesome FCPX/M5 interchange via rigging/publishing.


[Oliver Peters] "Dynamic Link between Premiere Pro and After Effects is one of the biggest selling points for the editors migrating to Premiere Pro."

It's a bit ironic that I wish Adobe's DL had something like the aforementioned rigging/publishing.

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

Craig Seeman
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 5:25:03 am

[Walter Soyka] "I think I am missing something. What do you see Send to Motion doing that it would require this?"

It's not that Motion requires this. It's that there's something underlying that both Motion and Logic Pro X will be using that's not fully developed yet. At this point the only reason I can see send to Motion isn't in FCPX, is that something else is holding it back. The only other Pro App (currently) that would use this feature is one that hasn't been upgraded recently.



Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 5:53:48 am

[Craig Seeman] "It's not that Motion requires this. It's that there's something underlying that both Motion and Logic Pro X will be using that's not fully developed yet. At this point the only reason I can see send to Motion isn't in FCPX, is that something else is holding it back. The only other Pro App (currently) that would use this feature is one that hasn't been upgraded recently."

Maybe -- but I don't actually think these are the same feature at all.

The ways I'd want to use a compositor and a DAW in conjunction with an NLE are totally different. Sending an entire FCPX project (timeline) to Motion would be messy, and sending individual clips to Logic Pro X would be messy.

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

Craig Seeman
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 6:06:03 am

[Walter Soyka] "sending individual clips to Logic Pro X would be messy."

But this was done with FCP legacy and SoundTrack Pro.

Again, I suspect Apple's ambitions to push round tripping is holding this up. They may have something more in mind. We won't know for sure until either Send To or Logic Pro X or both happen.

The alternative is that it's a very low priority but given what appears to be interest in this on various forums, I'd have to think the interest is high.

Given that FCPXML is already being used to send things "to and fro" I'd have to believe they're looking to do a bit more than that.



Return to posts index

Rob Mackintosh
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 9:02:34 am

I think you may be right Craig.

All that Send To Motion requires is that FCP X generate a Motion project file referencing media in the Event/Project database. Alternatively you could export FCPXML to Motion which would convert that into a Motion project. Once you've done your work in Motion you would then send back to FCPX, much like you do with generators now, except the generator file would be "published" to the Event and Project (like a compound clip) rather than the Generators Browser.

What would be really useful is having an Event Library and Browser in Motion.


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 7:21:38 pm

[Craig Seeman] "It's not that Motion requires this. It's that there's something underlying that both Motion and Logic Pro X will be using that's not fully developed yet. At this point the only reason I can see send to Motion isn't in FCPX, is that something else is holding it back. The only other Pro App (currently) that would use this feature is one that hasn't been upgraded recently."

I do love the optimism in this forum.

It's pretty rare that the absence of a relatively simple, yet awesome feature in an application is used as evidence of the secret on-going development of a more complicated, more awesome feature.

I'm not saying you're wrong -- just noting that this is not the sort of generosity shown the other A's around these parts.

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: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 5:47:08 am

[Walter Soyka] "I would have guessed that the problem is that Apple has to reinvent their entire interchange infrastructure (having deprecated EMXML and the Quicktime-based .MOTN renderer), and that Send to Motion was a low priority, given the otherwise-awesome FCPX/M5 interchange via rigging/publishing."

This.

FCPXML is a moving target, as is the entirety of Axel or whatever the internal format of fcpx itself is called.

It seems to get better and more capable with every release, but it is still under development.

The Motion and fcpx interfaces are unified now more than ever.

You can open effects in motion directly from fcpx as they seem to share a common language.

Fcpx and motion project formats don't seem to be jiving quite yet.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 1:51:21 am

but there are other questions right? I'm getting to the point of waiting for a back and forth about the implications of premiere possibly working in an understood industry fashion in an 18-24 month timeline.

Its not so much FCPX to motion - isn't it kind of why you would pair with motion? I am biased, i've been intensively at AE since 3.1/4.0.

to my thinking, the primary reason you take editing material to that environment in 6 out of 10 cases is grading and maybe some mograph finalling?

small trumpet blow - I just tried, today, to pitch my ability to do shot to shot grade on a behind the scenes 3 min piece I cut, with the stuff shot on alexa, where the ad itself was actually shot on 35 mill, at great expense across europe - the ad itself has been graded in davinci, surreally mimicking a sixties style I totally failed to unpick. I would have killed to have been in the room for the film grade.

But - the point is that AE contains colour finesse right? I've read your comparative piece on the CC stuff - I am half ignorant inclined to agree - I graded a channel's vertical shot Ident expensive landscape views in colour finesse.

It is an utterly serious piece of kit - if for no other reason than that you can calibrate the shadow mid and high ranges operations per shot, then take them through through colour spaces that have cyan going for them.

AE has had, as you point out, finesse since ver3-4.

It is an oddity that there is an almost unseen *nuclear CC arsenal* in AE for the editor - that has nothing to do with Mograph.

Also I like premiere in the timeline.

So anyway - hey - that magnetic timeline/ zooowwwieee.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 2:55:38 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "But - the point is that AE contains colour finesse right? I've read your comparative piece on the CC stuff - I am half ignorant inclined to agree - I graded a channel's vertical shot Ident expensive landscape views in colour finesse. It is an utterly serious piece of kit - if for no other reason than that you can calibrate the shadow mid and high ranges operations per shot, then take them through through colour spaces that have cyan going for them. AE has had, as you point out, finesse since ver3-4. It is an oddity that there is an almost unseen *nuclear CC arsenal* in AE for the editor - that has nothing to do with Mograph."

From Oliver's article Color Grading Choices [link] (now almost two years old): "Unless you are a masochist, it’s a really only a choice between an integrated tool, such as Avid’s, and a dedicated grading application like Resolve or Color."

I love After Effects. It's my primary tool. I use it for all kinds of things you're not supposed to do in Ae, like print design and large-raster finishing -- but I honestly can't understand why you would want to color grade in Ae when Resolve is free.

With Ae, you can't re-conform/color-trace. You can't (easily) render individual clips (with or without handles) for easy interchange back to finishing elsewhere. Nothing is real-time. There's only one still store, and that is all-or-nothing display. There are no grade management tools. There's no real timeline navigation or shot management. The point tracker is naive at best. Feathered masks just arrived in 2012, but you can't use the tracker to drive a mask's vertices (adding insult to injury). Ae lacks support for control surfaces (though I think Color Finesse does support a couple). Ae has nice color management, but the Color Finesse custom UI is unmanaged.

There is an unseen nuclear CC arsenal in Creative Suite Production Premium: it's called SpeedGrade. I am really looking forward to seeing how that develops over the next few versions.


[Aindreas Gallagher] "Also I like premiere in the timeline. "

Let's go waaay back through the sands of time and dig up Stu Maschwitz's old What Should Adobe Do With Premiere Pro? [link] from 2008. While several of his points in there on performance are well-addressed in Ae CS6 with the global performance cache, his points on the interface could be very well-taken today.

I think we are now sufficiently off-topic!

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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 12:01:27 pm

[Walter Soyka] "but I honestly can't understand why you would want to color grade in Ae when Resolve is free."


yeah, I maybe don't have great answer for that. I just find the ability to go with finesse, some masks for dodge and burn, some global stuff shining down over everything on adjustment layer - I find that does it for me, but you are quite a bit more hardcore than me - i could care less about tracking feathered whatnots.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 3:30:28 pm

With finesse and Ae, you can have tracking feathered what nots, that's what is nice about it.

It's After Effects for goodness sake, track and mask all you like.

I find Finesse to be perfectly capable of you want to get real color work done in Ae on a few shots.


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 5:37:55 pm

I think in part its because its the one I really learnt - like ten years ago, after watching maffit break it down - the whole - set your per shot mid low highs, (I love that function) get into the levels, the adjust wheels - but also just the kinds of things the different colour spaces can do - I find it a really nice place to noodle with an image.

As walter points out - i'm probably insane that I haven't been boning up more on resolve - or indeed speedgrade which is sitting on my dock - although with speed grade there are some very good in depth tutorials - I kind of feel like I get speedgrade, that if I had to jump in I'd be largely OK - cannot at all say the same for resolve.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 5:42:40 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's After Effects for goodness sake, track and mask all you like. "

If by that you mean, "It's After Effects for goodness sake, send stuff out to Mocha for tracking and mask all you like" -- I agree. Ae's built-in point tracker is a real weak point when compared with other compositors or color grading systems.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I find Finesse to be perfectly capable of you want to get real color work done in Ae on a few shots."

Like I said to Aindreas, I was too harsh before. I agree that Ae/CF is very capable of the work, and they are really nice tools to have available -- it just has a very clumsy workflow and limited grade management toolset, which is especially evident in longer-form coloring.

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: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 5:46:50 pm

[Walter Soyka] "If by that you mean, "It's After Effects for goodness sake, send stuff out to Mocha for tracking and mask all you like" -- I agree. Ae's built-in point tracker is a real weak point when compared with other compositors or color grading systems."

Not for color correction which rarely has to be a finely tuned track.

Especially with tools such as roto brush, Ae is no slouch for the simple stuff.

There is a vast tool set in Ae, that when combined with Finesse, makes sent work of it without having to go out to other applications.

But seriously though, bring on Speedgrade to some sort of tangible workflow the CS, eh?


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 6:45:46 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Especially with tools such as roto brush, Ae is no slouch for the simple stuff. There is a vast tool set in Ae, that when combined with Finesse, makes sent work of it without having to go out to other applications."

Totally with you. If you're already working in Ae, it's fantastic having the tools there to do your color work, too.

All I'm saying is that Ae makes a poor choice for a dedicated color grading app, because "proper" color grading apps have vastly better workflows.

Resolve is free. SpeedGrade is bundled with CS6. There's no need to suffer through clever but outdated DV Rebel workflows in 2013.


[Jeremy Garchow] "But seriously though, bring on Speedgrade to some sort of tangible workflow the CS, eh?"

Can't wait!

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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 7:10:57 pm

[Walter Soyka] "There's no need to suffer through clever but outdated DV Rebel workflows in 2013.
"


actually I'm going to disagree with this, in the context of a broader client piece where typography and design elements form part of the final master?

in that context AE wins - I did this thing for a client:

and the final session was me and the art director doing a shot to shot grade, and also dealing with type design placement and colour stuff.

AE is a very nice place to do title work - far nicer than smoke say - can't speak for resolve - but also - the design reference is very often a PSD which feeds in pretty well?

it may not be for all cases - but AE as a final master environment is not outdated imho.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 8:10:40 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "actually I'm going to disagree with this, in the context of a broader client piece where typography and design elements form part of the final master?"

We agree here.

It's all about the best tool for the job. If the job is just color, Ae is often not the best tool. If the job spans color, compositing, design -- then yes, absolutely, Ae is a fantastic and often unmatched tool. (Smoke also, but it has a different set of strengths and weaknesses than Ae in this context -- so it all depends on the job.)


[Aindreas Gallagher] "AE is a very nice place to do title work - far nicer than smoke say - can't speak for resolve - but also - the design reference is very often a PSD which feeds in pretty well? it may not be for all cases - but AE as a final master environment is not outdated imho."

Totally agree. I finish in Ae quite a lot myself, because it doesn't care what raster size I'm working in and because it lets me integrate design, compositing, and color.

Please consider my remarks about the unsuitability of Ae for coloring in the context of editorial/grading only. A few years ago, when Ae was affordable to guys like us and Resolve/Color/SpeedGrade were not, Ae was a color grading choice out of necessity, not suitability. Today, I see people here on the Ae forum too often struggling to use Ae for color where Resolve or SpeedGrade would be better suited to the job.

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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 8:37:56 pm

[Walter Soyka] "A few years ago, when Ae was affordable to guys like us and Resolve/Color/SpeedGrade were not, Ae was a color grading choice out of necessity, not suitability. Today, I see people here on the Ae forum too often struggling to use Ae for color where Resolve or SpeedGrade would be better suited to the job."

yep, totally agree - the fact that mount olympus tools like resolve have just landed in our collective laps is basically a little mad. I'm not always doing type compositing style masters, and I'm nearly always packaging everything off to AE - some ingrained habits there.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 5:38:03 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "yeah, I maybe don't have great answer for that. I just find the ability to go with finesse, some masks for dodge and burn, some global stuff shining down over everything on adjustment layer"

I think I was way too harsh before. I do use color-correction tools in Ae all the time -- in context of animations or composites. I love the power and flexibility for those situations.

I just shudder a little bit when I see someone suggesting using Ae as the color corrector in traditional cut 'n' color workflows. It doesn't exploit Ae's strengths and really exposes a lot of its weaknesses. Unless you're already accustomed to the way Ae works (as you are), it can be a very frustrating experience.

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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 6:50:09 pm

[Walter Soyka] " I just shudder a little bit when I see someone suggesting using Ae as the color corrector in traditional cut 'n' color workflows"

I know - if I'm being honest, I'll just take any opportunity to boost premiere - I want to see it take hold. In this context though - the idea that editor A will take his edit to AE is a stretch - I do, thats where I always send a serious thing via FCP2AE scripts and that.

that said I might hesitate to take a long form piece in there - thats a different ball of wax - although mind you - Stu Maschwitz still appears to do so, judging from a thing he put about a year ago - its not ideal, the layer management gets pretty extreme, but if you get used to jumping around a hundred odd layer AE comp, its not utterly horrible, and you know - you're in AE town - which is a nice place to be.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Alex Gollner
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 2:19:51 pm

Given that there is a copy of Motion (sans UI) built into Final Cut Pro X, I think not having "Send to Motion" is akin to X not having the same implementation of Multicam as FCP7 on launch:

They're not yet able to do it right, so they want to wait.

I hope they're working on a true collaborative version of 'Send to Motion' - not just where an editor runs both apps at the same time on the same computer, but when someone else can use Motion (or Compressor, Aperture, Logic, Photoshop, After Effects...) to manipulate timeline content on another Mac (or iOS device) while the editor sticks to editing. One of the many steps to making this possible is by going trackless - so that one collaborator moving content from one layer to another doesn't spoil someone else's work.

Note that means the NLE's role as 'Grand Central Terminal' of post-production means that it should work with apps from other companies. Apple doesn't mind if you use After Effects to work in Final Cut Pro X compound clips - as long as AE is running on a Mac.

The current definition of post-production collaboration - sharing media plus a chain of apps locking content while it is being worked on - seems a bit old-fashioned in 2012.

I wonder which 'A' will be the first to implement 21st century collaboration?



@alex4d


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 2:48:51 pm

[Alex Gollner] "I wonder which 'A' will be the first to implement 21st century collaboration?"

'A'll of them?

;)


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 7:17:45 pm

[Alex Gollner] "Given that there is a copy of Motion (sans UI) built into Final Cut Pro X, I think not having "Send to Motion" is akin to X not having the same implementation of Multicam as FCP7 on launch: They're not yet able to do it right, so they want to wait."

Could be -- I'm just surprised to see this feature prioritized so low (especially with the lower hurdle of the common renderer).


[Alex Gollner] "The current definition of post-production collaboration - sharing media plus a chain of apps locking content while it is being worked on - seems a bit old-fashioned in 2012."

Yes, it does seem old-fashioned.

But the inter-dependency problems for collaboration are real: some things (compositing, spot audio repair/restoration/cleaning) can be worked on at the media/clip level, so integration into the NLE is relatively easy, as the underlying assets can be easily swapped. Other things need to work on the sequence level (grading, mixing), so integration back to the NLE is vastly more complex, as they're not swaps but conforms/reconforms, and changing the editorial may affect the other work previously done.

There are also two kinds of collaboration: self-collaboration (where one individual wears all the hats and really only works one way at a time), and actual group collaboration, where multiple parties can be be doing vastly different work simultaneously. Managing the synchronization conflicts that may arise is non-trivial.

Bill has often noted here that Apple has historically been about individual empowerment; if this is the case, does it color the kinds of collaboration features we see?

I'm very curious to see the logistics of how round-tripping ultimately works.

I think either Logic Pro X will have to have (or at least support) a magnetic timeline. While I have argued here how the magnetic timeline is a fine model for video editorial, I'm having a hard time imaging how it would work in a DAW.

What happens when you want to add a sound effect or something in Logic? How do you connect it? Don't you basically need a large subset of FCPX editorial functionality built into Logic to make this work?

If this is the case, is there an advantage to making audio editorial separate? Why not merge it into FCPX itself, so you can mix in editorial context?

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

Oliver Peters
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 11:40:21 pm

[Walter Soyka] "What happens when you want to add a sound effect or something in Logic?"

I just don't see how any of this makes sense. Apple pointedly positions FCP X as "Editing, sound and color - Together in one app". I just don't see them making an FCP X/Logic X integration. "Send to" like in STP, maybe. After all, there is no "live" tie-in between Aperture and FCP X, is there?

It's different with Motion, because it has always been positioned as a companion app for editors. Logic has never been tied to the video side. If anything, I would see Apple move Logic further away from what an editor needs and even more towards the needs of musicians. IOW, less of a ProTools wannabe as far as audio post is concerned.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 11:50:48 pm

[Oliver Peters] "After all, there is no "live" tie-in between Aperture and FCP X, is there?"

It depends on what you mean by live tie in.

There is much more integration than before FCPX.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 11:55:16 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "It depends on what you mean by live tie in."

Can I import an image from Aperture into FCP X, then make non-destructive, non-baked image adjustments in Aperture, and have those update inside X?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 11:57:48 pm

You know the answer to that question, it's "sort of".


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 21, 2012 at 1:03:24 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "You know the answer to that question, it's "sort of"."

What!!?? It's much worse. Here's what actually happens. When you bring a file in from Aperture using the photo browser, it brings in the temp preview image from the library. This is generally a half-size JPEG proxy image. For example, I tested some 2400-wide DNGs from a BMCC. I dragged in a frame and it comes in as a 1200-wide JPEG. You can find it in the Original Media folder for that event. If I go back to Aperture and make an adjustment - like change colors and crop it - nothing updates in FCP X. I can drag that same image again into X for the new view and now I get a new JPEG; but because I cropped it, it's even smaller. Sheesh!

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 21, 2012 at 1:09:18 am

That's what I mean by sort of.

You can, in fact, see the Aperture updates in the FCPX Aperture interface.

It's sort of there, sort of weird, but hey, so is dynamic link. It's awesome when it works, not so awesome when things start crashing.

But nothing compares to Avid's direct link to a ProTools session, I mean how could it?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 21, 2012 at 1:19:37 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "But nothing compares to Avid's direct link to a ProTools session, I mean how could it?"

I think you just made my point. That's why I doubt you'll seen any sort of "dynamic link" style connection between FCP X and Logic. OTOH, there is a working link between Avid MC/Sym and EyeOn Fusion using their Connection conduit. And of course, Avid FX is basically Boris RED grafted inside MC/Sym.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 21, 2012 at 2:46:58 am

[Oliver Peters] "I think you just made my point. That's why I doubt you'll seen any sort of "dynamic link" style connection between FCP X and Logic. OTOH, there is a working link between Avid MC/Sym and EyeOn Fusion using their Connection conduit. And of course, Avid FX is basically Boris RED grafted inside MC/Sym."

I have no idea if there will be a direct link. Right now, there's zero hint of a link to Logic, but its simply not true of other functions even if the "links" are tenuous.

If "an artist with programming skills" can get fcpx to Ae/Nuke with a bunch of capability, I'd imagine a programmer with artist skills would be able to take the ball and run with it at some point.

Apple will provide the platform from which to jump, it's up to developers to take that first leap.

The problem is, the platform is still being built so it's a bit rickety.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 21, 2012 at 3:01:37 am

[Oliver Peters] "I just don't see how any of this makes sense. Apple pointedly positions FCP X as "Editing, sound and color - Together in one app". I just don't see them making an FCP X/Logic X integration."

Exactly my point. I think that if you wanted round-tripping, Logic Pro X would have to subsume so much of FCPX that it would make more sense to just broaden the audio toolset in FCPX in the first place.

(Of course, I also thought Logic was aimed at music composition and sequencing moreso than recording, mixing, or engineering, and now here we are, talking about it as the perfect DAW to pair with an NLE -- but what do I know?)

I'm hoping maybe Michael can chime in here, too, but is there any reason other than history why NLEs and DAWs are so separate? Is there a workflow or development reason why, say, Premiere can't reasonably have Audition built in below V1 on the timeline?

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

Chris Harlan
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 21, 2012 at 4:18:33 am

[Walter Soyka] " is there any reason other than history why NLEs and DAWs are so separate? Is there a workflow or development reason why, say, Premiere can't reasonably have Audition built in below V1 on the timeline?
"


Of course, what do we mean by DAW? The term seems to have a certain flexibility. Is it as simple as a software multitrack recorder? Or does it also require sequencing abilities? To my mind, a true DAW requires both recording and sequencing, and many current DAWs started their lives as sequencers and only later incorporated recording and playback of audio files. Personally, I see Audition as a very nice multitrack recorder/editor, and see no reason why something like it could not be soldered onto Premiere. Whether its code, which goes back to Cool Edit, is at all compatible, I have no idea, but really, something very much like it is already there.

As I say, though, I see DAWs as being much more than that. The thing is that when editors generally think of DAWS, they are not thinking of the whole package, and in particular, they are not thinking of the features that make DAWs attractive to musicians and composers. Editors tend to only notice the sound file editing and recording functions of Logic, for instance, but not the underlying MIDI function, the ability to generate virtual instruments, the ability to control remote instruments, and all of the quantization and composition tools that composers and musicians find valuable.

I personally would love to see a true and complete hybrid, but I doubt many others really would. I'd love to be able to slap a virtual instrument like my Omnisphere into a track below sfx and lay down a pad, but how many people would that kind of complexity actually serve? Probably not many. When people talk about Logic becoming the audio component for X down the road, it occurs to me that they don't have a full grasp on everything that Logic actually does, or who it best serves. ProTools is the same way; I'm amazed at the number of people who think it is just a fancy nonlinear multitrack deck.


Return to posts index

Michael Garber
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 2:14:42 am

In listening to Philip Hodgett's Terence and Philip Show podcast last night, it would seem that it has something to do with App Store sandboxing. Sounds like the FCPX team is bound by the same rules of non-Apple developers. Could explain a lot of things.

http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2012/12/the-terence-and-philip-show-episode-4...

Michael Garber
5th Wall - a post production company
Bloggy Blog: GARBERSHOP


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 2:20:21 am

[Michael Garber] "Sounds like the FCPX team is bound by the same rules of non-Apple developers. Could explain a lot of things."

I don't think so. Apple clearly and routinely violates its own rules. For example, FCP X updates in Lion and Mountain Lion are patch updates, not full installers. That is not the case with other apps and is generally not allowed for any other developers. Besides, you already have the ability to open and modify effects from FCP X inside Motion. Wouldn't that be the same type of cross-application modification?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Michael Garber
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 2:23:47 am

I'm sure they do get away with more than other app developers. But perhaps there are some things they don't get away with. Check out the podcast. I'm pretty sure he states what he heard from people who work on FCPX directly.

If I'm wrong or it's more complicated than what he said, then I'm happy to retract what I wrote.

Michael Garber
5th Wall - a post production company
Bloggy Blog: GARBERSHOP


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 20, 2012 at 2:30:12 am

[Michael Garber] "Check out the podcast. I'm pretty sure he states what he heard from people who work on FCPX directly. "

I did. But that doesn't mean anything. App Store apps also can't use installers that spread things all over your hard drive. Didn't prevent Apple from moving the OS to the App Store.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

John Heagy
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 21, 2012 at 1:09:48 am

I wish Apple had simply put Motion in FCPX. That's will be the only way to keep AE fans inside FCPX for simple effects and compositing.

John


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 21, 2012 at 1:11:44 am

[John Heagy] "I wish Apple had simply put Motion in FCPX."

That's what I say all the time, then out come the shotguns and hunting hounds.


Return to posts index

Shawn Larkin
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 21, 2012 at 4:10:11 am

FCPX + a truly integrated M5 would be like a nice / clean / well-designed version of Smoke 2013.

That's the dream at least.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 21, 2012 at 4:37:09 am

[John Heagy] "I wish Apple had simply put Motion in FCPX."

[Jeremy Garchow] "That's what I say all the time, then out come the shotguns and hunting hounds."

I'm more and more sympathetic to this point of view. I find myself in After Effects, thinking about how easy a specific problem would be to solve in Premiere, or I find myself in Premiere, thinking about how easy a specific problem would be to solve in Audition or After Effects. Dynamic link is nice, but it'd be cool to have any of the tools I need, all in an editorial context. If I could smush Ae, Pr, Au, and Sg together into one uber-app, I'd be pretty happy. I don't really know what I would want the interface to be, but having all those capabilities together would be pretty nice, and having them separated as they are now is sometimes frustrating.

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

Shawn Larkin
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 21, 2012 at 5:11:04 am

I think, or rather, hope that Apple is working on a kind of all-in-one integration for the other Pro Apps.

It seems to me that since FCPX and M5 share the same engine under the hood (built on A/V foundation), that having a Motion Project in the FCPX timeline is (almost) as speedy having Connect FX built into Smoke 2013 (although SMAC 2013 has all kinds of bells and whistles for 3D compositing that M5 doesn't). But in a way it's better because you don't have all the overhead code and memory demands to make it work as a single app.

So it's not an all-in-one per say, but having the foundations be so solidly tied between applications is better than dynamic-linking or round-tripping IMHO.

I think if Apple could do the same for Audio -- building Logic X around A/V foundation -- as well as making the current implementation of Aperture work better, then that solution would be a kind of best of both world scenario, where you get speed and responsiveness tied to a depth of functionality ... when you need it.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 21, 2012 at 2:21:39 pm

[Shawn Larkin] "I think, or rather, hope that Apple is working on a kind of all-in-one integration for the other Pro Apps."

I would agree, although I take a much more pessimistic view. I just don't think Apple has the interest in doing this. There's also the issue that the development teams are in different geographical locations, have different corporate marching orders, and come from different historical backgrounds. In the end, it's something Apple just doesn't do very well.

I, too, prefer an all-in-one app, but when you compare the level of effects integration within Avid DS, Autodesk Smoke, Quantel eQ/iQ/Pablo or even Avid Symphony/Media Composer - to what you get in FCP 7/Motion or Adobe Premiere Pro/After Effects - the difference is night and day.

Take for example, FCP X or even Motion by itself. Neither handles multiple-layer compositing very well. You quickly choke playback when you hit the limits of RAM or the GPU with no mechanism to throttle performance past the basic (and inadequate) performance/quality preference setting. Motion is a motion-graphics tool with a nice level of advanced compositing, but it's no Shake, After Effects or Nuke.

Don't get me wrong. I started this thread, so I clearly see some advantage to sending a clip or group of clips to Motion for some advanced work, but I'm just not sure Apple can pull it off in the right way. In my FCP 7 experience, the sequences that have caused me the most grief and serious crashes have been those that contained live Motion projects inside the timeline. So, while it's a nice idea that I think bears development, I'd be happier with a simple one-way "send to" function to get clips into Motion without worrying about live round-tripping back into X.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 21, 2012 at 6:57:10 pm

But I'd say that the execution of "Rigging & Publishing" and the ability to open FCPX effects in Motion is itself, innovative.

I think a number of people are looking at an old methodology to do something whereas Apple is likely to approach this very differently. I can't help but think they're thinking beyond XML to send clips back and forth at least in their own apps.

While it's not quite the same as "everything in one app" they seem to be looking building around a "common engine" as they've done and in the progress of furthering with FCPX and Motion.

Given how very long it's been Logic has gone, I expect we'll see a bit more than a UI facelift with some new features.

Given that Apple has basically dumped all ProApps that came from purchases... except Logic I believe, that Logic Pro X, just like FCPX, will be an entirely new app.

Of course it's entirely speculative but I think there's going to be a deeper tie in... and I still can't help but believe that's why we haven't seen Send To functions as of yet. I'm not sure "Send To" would be the appropriate term so much Round Trip or a better method of linking Motion and/or Logic Pro X projects to an FCPX Project (timeline).

As to Aperture, that's another program that hasn't been updated in a long time.

I don't want to say my position is the foil to the pessimist because I have no strong case to build my position on beyond that Apple's forward motion seems to be towards tight integration around common engines.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 21, 2012 at 7:42:05 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I would agree, although I take a much more pessimistic view. I just don't think Apple has the interest in doing this. There's also the issue that the development teams are in different geographical locations, have different corporate marching orders, and come from different historical backgrounds. In the end, it's something Apple just doesn't do very well."

There are other companies that follow this business model exactly. This isn't new or unique to Apple.

Also, none of that matters if the system works.

[Oliver Peters] "Take for example, FCP X or even Motion by itself. Neither handles multiple-layer compositing very well. You quickly choke playback when you hit the limits of RAM or the GPU with no mechanism to throttle performance past the basic (and inadequate) performance/quality preference setting. Motion is a motion-graphics tool with a nice level of advanced compositing, but it's no Shake, After Effects or Nuke."

Are you saying After Effects is a real time compositor? We all know that's not true.

I think we can all cripple a program when hitting RAM and CPU limits unless you start playing with the big boys on the big iron systems of today, and even then, there are real physical limitations.

What do you discount is FCPX's real time scrubbing preview of single effects capabilities. Even on slower machines this is still pretty good, chromakeying is near real time. I'm not saying it's of final render quality, but getting a rough idea of what is going on is pretty damn good. Can't do that in After Effects. Or Smoke.

Smoke 2013 is a render monster, and not super real time, especially when you start stacking nodes and rendering. It will also fragment a SAN in no time. The image sequence rendering makes sense from a workflow standpoint, but it causes much more drive maintenance on my end which slows the studio down. Plus, while it is an editor, it's not made for longer form editing with tons of footage, but maybe that's just my opinion. Short form promos/spots, absolutely, whole haertedly, yes. If I did promos, I'd look at Smoke.

[Oliver Peters] "Don't get me wrong. I started this thread, so I clearly see some advantage to sending a clip or group of clips to Motion for some advanced work, but I'm just not sure Apple can pull it off in the right way. In my FCP 7 experience, the sequences that have caused me the most grief and serious crashes have been those that contained live Motion projects inside the timeline. So, while it's a nice idea that I think bears development, I'd be happier with a simple one-way "send to" function to get clips into Motion without worrying about live round-tripping back into X."

How much have you hammered Dynamic Link? Just curious.


Return to posts index

Shawn Larkin
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 21, 2012 at 8:23:34 pm

Jeremy pretty much sums up the reality of the alternatives: Smoke, AE, Etc.

i think the A/V foundation + a New(er) Mac = a giant performance gain between Apple's Pro Apps vs. those of Adobe or Autodesk or Avid.

I am curious to know if Apple will create a more independent eco-system for doing your work. Perhaps, you do all the heavy lifting in FCPX with some Motion in your timeline and then jump into Logic X for your final mix.

I mean in my dream world, M5 would have some additional compositing functionality added and you would be able to do some kind of high-end grading in Aperture. But that ain't gonna happen so you still might need to go out to Nuke, AE, Resolve or Smoke for the final touches on shots or the whole show. But maybe not for audio if they can make it work with Logic X right.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 21, 2012 at 10:05:11 pm

[Shawn Larkin] "i think the A/V foundation + a New(er) Mac = a giant performance gain between Apple's Pro Apps vs. those of Adobe or Autodesk or Avid."

I'm not sure I follow here. A/V Foundation is a media handling library -- no more, no less.

Adobe has written their own high-performance media handler, called MediaCore, and it has great performance. Adobe apps must rely on QuickTime for ProRes media, since ProRes decode is dependent on QuickTime, and there is a performance penalty here due to the lack of cross-platform 64-bit QuickTime library (thanks, Apple) -- but many other QuickTime codecs and all MXF/MPEG2/MPEG4 variants are handled natively by the 64-bit MediaCore. Not only does this provide "giant performance gains" over 32-bit QuickTime (like FCPX enjoys over FCP7), but it also does it on a much broader hardware base than FCPX with A/V Foundation.

There are things that I think are often faster in FCPX (especially logging/sorting/searching footage), but that's due to UI and project database design choices, not the underlying media framework.

Avid and Autodesk also have unique media handlers -- Avid uses MXF natively, and Autodesk uses a frame store. They have their reasons, and those are unlikely to change, but I don't see how this creates a performance gap.

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

Walter Soyka
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 21, 2012 at 10:16:42 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Are you saying After Effects is a real time compositor? We all know that's not true."

You are dead on. The Ae renderer is very old-school in its philosophy (though caching is significantly improved in CS6).

But I think Oliver's point was that because Ae assumes it will not render in realtime, it has a decent toolset for dealing with that fact. Motion's design assumption seems to be that it will run in real-time, so once you exceed your machine's capabilities, you don't have many options for dealing with that reality.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I think we can all cripple a program when hitting RAM and CPU limits unless you start playing with the big boys on the big iron systems of today, and even then, there are real physical limitations."

You know how they avoid rendering on Flame? They call it processing instead!

And they let you offload it to a farm in the machine room [link].


[Jeremy Garchow] "How much have you hammered Dynamic Link? Just curious."

Dynamic link can be pretty painful with anything other than simple Ae comps. If you're using dynamic link with even slightly complicated comps, I highly recommend using Ae CS6's new "Cache working area in the background" feature. Dynamic link can then pull cached media instead of trying to re-render on the fly.

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: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 12:39:15 am

[Walter Soyka] "Motion's design assumption seems to be that it will run in real-time, so once you exceed your machine's capabilities, you don't have many options for dealing with that reality."

I'm not following, It has different quality settings just like Ae as well as a 'RAM Preview' type of system:



motion_options.png

[Walter Soyka] "And they let you offload it to a farm in the machine room [link]."

Right! We should all get render farms.

[Walter Soyka] "Dynamic link can then pull cached media instead of trying to re-render on the fly."

Render and replace in the Ae comp works too. I still crashes sometimes, though. It is sometimes easier to keep them separate by importing Pr Projs to Ae and avoiding dynamic link. What makes it unfortunate is that you can't have separate Pr projects open, so I can't send just a few things very easily without a lot of safety dances.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 1:04:05 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm not following, It has different quality settings just like Ae as well as a 'RAM Preview' type of system:"

Yes, but Ae also has the ability to toggle live update, it has adaptive resolution, it allows you two separate RAM preview settings with different resolutions and frame skipping settings, it allows you to make and use proxies for any kind of asset or comp, it allows you to pre-render precomps, it allows you to work in a specific region of interest, it allows you to adjust a variety of render settings on a per layer basis, all of which is easily overridden for final render, and the new cache system stores intermediate layers as well as final renders, and applies to all instances of particular footage with particular effect settings on a frame by frame basis.

I'm not trying to knock Motion here, but the Ae toolset is richer for managing this kind of complexity.

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: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 1:27:08 am

[Walter Soyka] "I'm not trying to knock Motion here, but the Ae toolset is richer for managing this kind of complexity."

Always has been. You worked on early After Effects/CoSA I imagine?

That DNA and methodology is still in Ae.

The Global Cache is new, though, and it's nice. But it is very new.

Most of those features you mention were to mitigate the super ridiculously long renders on those old machines and turn them in to simply ridiculously long renders.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 2:29:22 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Always has been. You worked on early After Effects/CoSA I imagine? That DNA and methodology is still in Ae."

Nah, I'm a spring chicken. My first version of Ae was 4.0 (big new feature: RAM preview), and I didn't really get serious until 5.5 (big new feature: advanced 3D renderer).

But your point is right on, and it's a blessing and a curse with Ae. If Ae were to be developed from scratch today, the renderer would be very different from a technical perspective.

In some ways, I'd like Adobe to pull an Apple and re-architect the renderer. On the other hand, that thought is terrifying. Apple may be the only A with the special blend of courage and foolishness to scrap a successful product and start over.



[Jeremy Garchow] "Most of those features you mention were to mitigate the super ridiculously long renders on those old machines and turn them in to simply ridiculously long renders."

Absolutely true, but resource constraints will always be with us. Ae has a set of tools to deal with that reality. Motion doesn't have those tools in that same depth, which I thought was Oliver's point.

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: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 5:48:35 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Motion doesn't have those tools in that same depth, which I thought was Oliver's point."

Well, no. It doesn't, but it's not like it doesn't have any. It actually has some decent ones, and yes they work differently than Ae.

Motion is not Ae, never has been, never will be.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 6:39:26 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Well, no. It doesn't, but it's not like it doesn't have any. It actually has some decent ones, and yes they work differently than Ae."

I honestly forgot how we got here. I had to back and re-read the thread.

I thought Oliver's point, which I tried to back up, was that Motion lacks tools for dealing with the project once it reaches a certain level of render complexity -- which is true. This was part of a larger discussion about being realistic about what we might expect about round-tripping and effects integration.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Motion is not Ae, never has been, never will be."

Of course, and I like Motion for what it is. I'm really not trying to bash it. It's a fantastic tool that is designed to solve a different set of problems than Ae. That's a good thing -- post-production is better for having both of these tools available.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 12:46:09 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "There are other companies that follow this business model exactly."

True, of course, but how about some examples in our business where it actually works well. Especially when direct integration is required. The closest example might be Adobe and integration isn't as good as it could be across the board. Look at Avid. The integration among MC, DS and PT is only getting somewhat better after years of effort.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Are you saying After Effects is a real time compositor?"

No, but there a very slick routine between degraded scrubbing and then popping to full res at pause. Makes for much faster operation than a similar composite in Motion.

[Jeremy Garchow] "What do you discount is FCPX's real time scrubbing preview of single effects capabilities."

I think the operative term is "single effects". As far as previewing effects in the effects browser - it's nice, but not a huge selling point for me.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Smoke 2013 is a render monster"

You can work with compressed movie files. Renders are also faster than on most other NLEs. Some timeline effects will play in real-time.

[Jeremy Garchow] "How much have you hammered Dynamic Link?"

I've used it some, but I'm not a big AE user, except for dedicated shots created and finished in AE. I prefer an all-in-one solution.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 1:18:26 am

[Oliver Peters] "True, of course, but how about some examples in our business where it actually works well."

We are getting to the larger point.

None of it really works exorbitantly well and these problems aren't exclusive to Apple unless you spend exorbitant amounts of money on configured networkable system with custom software, although you'd think Apple is somehow responsible for the apocalypse after reading this forum for long enough.

[Oliver Peters] "No, but there a very slick routine between degraded scrubbing and then popping to full res at pause. Makes for much faster operation than a similar composite in Motion."

I'm just not following this at all. Motion has many ways to power through composites.

[Oliver Peters] "[Jeremy Garchow] "Smoke 2013 is a render monster"

You can work with compressed movie files. Renders are also faster than on most other NLEs. Some timeline effects will play in real-time."


Yes, but very very few. Rendering is very prevalent in Smoke 2013. I find it's not much different then most other systems in my short testing.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 1:25:46 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Motion has many ways to power through composites."

Yes, but they don't appear to work nearly as well.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Why no "Send To Motion"?
on Dec 22, 2012 at 1:35:00 am

[Oliver Peters] "Yes, but they don't appear to work nearly as well."

They are different.


Return to posts index

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