FORUMS: list search recent posts

Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Julian Bowman
Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 21, 2013 at 7:13:45 pm

I don't get it. It is attrocious. Why am I fiddling in the top right of the screen but the visual representation is on the timeline ONLY AFTER i open a box to see it, and then it is more clicks to see the bit I want and then I can't do anything to them on the timeline when I am looking at it but have to go back to the inspector and if I want to move a keyframe on the timeline and I pick my spot with the scrubber thing and leave it there then click on the keyframe it moves the bloody scrubber so i have lost the spot I want to drag it to which defeats the point of the only thing I can appear to do on the timeline part of keyframing anyway.

FFS, did they give keyframing to the Workfare kid?

It is SO horrible I can't believe people defend it. I don't care if people hated 7's, give it back, at least it was logical and usable and I could achieve my keyframing without feeling like I have entered the Krypton Factor.

Yes, I use X and will continue to use it.
No, it isn't an inspirational advance on its competitors.
Yes, I totally understand why anyone may hate this thing.
No, the boons do not currently outweigh the banes.
And if you seriously find, over the course of a project, that this is faster than an NLE which wasn't dropped on its head by the doctor as it was born, then I would hazard a guess you edits are simple enough that you could have used Pinnacle Studio 9 to do them.

APPLE, stop chasing seats you'll never get by adding in 'things' that 'they' want and fix this f***er at its core would you?

Thanks and love.

/rant


Return to posts index

Julian Bowman
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 21, 2013 at 7:22:31 pm

Ok, lets add this:

why, when I keyframe the position of a clip, is there movement between two of the keyframes that have the same points?

I move the image to the top left of the screen, for example, and want it to sit there for 5 seconds before I move it back to the middle.

Why does it sit in the top left with a stagger as if it had a bottle of vodka on the way to the top left of the screen?

Why can't it JUST SIT STILL?

is that too much to ask?

Am I holding it that wrongly?



Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 21, 2013 at 7:56:34 pm

[Julian Bowman] "Why does it sit in the top left with a stagger as if it had a bottle of vodka on the way to the top left of the screen?

Why can't it JUST SIT STILL?"



It's a bug, thought it had been fixed as I don't see it these days... You on 10.0.8? After you set keyframes, go to the first one, move 1f forward, set a kf, then delete it. do the same 1 frame before the outgoing kf. Something like that....

Also, if you have transform selected in the viewer you can see your paths and adjust linearity etc by right clicking, which I'm sure you know... One thing I discovered though is that you can select the KF in the clip animation and, if the clip is the focus, you can use the , and . keys to move the kf and the viewer tracks it...

It could be better, and hopefully it will be... ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index


Julian Bowman
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 21, 2013 at 7:59:43 pm

Thank you Charlie, will test that workaround out. greatly appreciated. And yep, on 10.0.8.

Will try it tomorrow, at the moment I want to feed the app to the dog so probably wisest to unplug and watch re-runs of Britain's Got Talent (Hungarian, though, it seems).

Many thanks for the pointer.



Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 21, 2013 at 8:31:12 pm

[Julian Bowman] "at the moment I want to feed the app to the dog so probably wisest to unplug and watch re-runs of Britain's Got Talent (Hungarian, though, it seems)."

lol. Yeah, that KF thing is annoying, here's the youtube vide that illustrates the workaround. He's doing it to get a truly linear move, but it works for anything keyframed that moves uh... unexpectedly. ;-)







-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Aaron Kendeall
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Aug 1, 2014 at 2:23:29 pm

You guys are feckin' brilliant! Three cheers.


Return to posts index


danhamilton
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Sep 6, 2013 at 9:49:56 pm

This is one of those bugs that is so unusual I thought I would put together a little video tutorial to demonstrate the issue and how the "fix" is applied. Here is the link to my blog post about it. Keyframes on Vodka I hope it is helpful to some one else.






Return to posts index

joe mordecai
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 21, 2013 at 7:32:46 pm

Keyframing in X is probably my biggest gripe with the software. Needlessly convoluted and laggy.

Though, I've been editing for ten years, I use a bunch of NLEs and prefer to use X, and I'm making a very nice living with it on some very well known brands. So, can we simmer down a bit and not denigrate people as amateurs because they do find it effective? Many of us would appreciate that. We are all adults after all.


Return to posts index

Julian Bowman
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 21, 2013 at 7:38:58 pm

Do you know what, I use FCPX for paid work too. In fact I made it through the largest job I have ever done with FCPX and made the most money I have ever made on a job with it. Does not mean that it isn't more crap than good at the moment and doesn't mean those who blindly champion it and leap down the throat of anyone who farts in its direction shouldn't be on the end of a tongue lashing now and then.

If this software had a little more common sense applied to it (or perhaps a real world editor or two on the team) and stopped thinking it was smarter than it is and got seriously debugged, then it would be alright it would.

Plus, trying to suggest I be non ranty when my opening post was by description a rant... you'll probably have more luck reinserting an egg into a chicken.



Return to posts index


joe mordecai
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 21, 2013 at 7:41:47 pm

i'm not arguing with your rant about the software. that is all.


Return to posts index

Julian Bowman
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 21, 2013 at 7:44:34 pm

okey dokey.



Return to posts index

Jason Jenkins
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 21, 2013 at 8:37:25 pm

[joe mordecai] "i'm not arguing with your rant about the software. that is all."

Easy there. You're going to give this forum a bad name. Surely you can muster a small personal attack or two.

Jason Jenkins
Flowmotion Media
Video production... with style!

Check out my Mormon.org profile.


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 22, 2013 at 1:56:30 am

Damn it man now I've spewed my Pale Ale. :)


Return to posts index

Nick Toth
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 21, 2013 at 8:54:40 pm

Julian

First place your keyframes in the keyframe editor. Place them anywhere in the clip for now. Next, choose each keyframe and set it's parameters. Now drag the keyframes to set the timing. You are done.

Say I want to go from full-screen to 50% in the upper left hand corner, hold for 2 seconds and then come back to full screen.

Size and position the clip at the hold position. Set 4 keyframes in the keyframe editor. Choose the first frame in the keyframe editor. In the inspector set X and Y to zero and scale to 100%. Choose the last frame in the keyframe editor and repeat. Position the keyframes for the correct timing in the keyframe editor. You're done and you will not get any drift between the two hold keyframes.

I believe drift is caused when the two hold keyframes are set in between existing keyframes. Keyframing has to be fairly methodical. I learned that in Lightwave 3D.

Hope this helps.

anickt


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 21, 2013 at 9:19:53 pm

I have been struggling with the keyframing in X since it's release. For the last two days I've been dealing with it's weirdness, and I find myself wanting to drink at the end of the day.

It's absurd how flaky it is. The timeline jumping to some other clip is only one problem. I've tried applying the last keyframe first... or the first keyframe first. I find it works about 50% of the time. Sometimes I restart FCP X to get it to work correctly.

Apple really needs to fix this... it's embarrassing. Clients are noticing the problem and I'm having to adjust my billings to reflect the wasted time...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index


Nikolas Bäurle
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 21, 2013 at 9:21:07 pm

If you only use the inspector you will get a linear movement. Using the viewer you get curves. The keyframing is really not that bad once you get used to its quirks. I'll post a link of how I see the bug. I work with keyframing at Promiflash in Berlin, and I would never in hell get the work I do done as fast in Legacy.

"Always look on the bright side of life" - Monty Python



Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 24, 2013 at 11:40:47 pm

I hoped you had an answer but I just tried making a simple scale and position move using only the inspector. Nope. Still get easing on the in/out points. Not linear. Same results I get when using the transform tool in the viewer. Problem is the scale has easing, but the position doesn't. If they both had easing, that would actually be nice.

If you can't change the easing, then it won't visually be linear. It'll have this little s curve to the push in that looks like crap.


Return to posts index

Nikolas Bäurle
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 25, 2013 at 11:26:02 pm

Bret, yes, just tried it, you are correct.

But the example I posted was about the back and forth movement between the same Keyframes that people have problems with. In my example the image stays put. Even with that funky s move, if I scale, the image stays still between keyframe B and C.

Thanks for bringing up the s curve, hadn't thought about it.
For what I'm doing on X right now Its not been a problem since i usually whipe the image off, or let it fall or jump out of the frame. If i want that perfect straight movement I always use Ken Burns.

I also tried it in AFX just now, perfect linear. In Motion I get a curve for the size by default, and change it back to linear in the Keyframe editor.

The thing thats really missing in X is a decent Keyframe editor or ar least a little more keyframe controll like for opacity:-)

Nonetheless I still like it for what I'm currently doing and its a step up from Legacy.

"Always look on the bright side of life" - Monty Python



Return to posts index


Nikolas Bäurle
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 21, 2013 at 10:16:41 pm

Here's a quick screen recording I just did. Sorry about no sound and the framerate a little off, but you should see whats going on.








"Always look on the bright side of life" - Monty Python



Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 22, 2013 at 1:50:24 am

Amen brother. And don't anyone tell me to use Motion. FWIW Motion is pretty much crap at keyframing too. Perhaps I've used AE for too long, but when FCP X can't even perform the most basic keyframing tasks of Avid or AE from 1996 (when I started using both) then it's junk. FCP X keyframing is 99% the same concept as FCP 1.0 keyframing. Just on a different interface. No copy and paste. No multiple keyframe selection. Problems with easing and bezier consistency. (X has one problem, legacy had another). Good thing about legacy was that linear worked. The problem in legacy was when you didn't want linear.

FCP keyframing sucks. Apple doesn't really do Keyframes.

Alright, perhaps I should put the Pale Ale down. Or the iPhone. I've made my choice.


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 22, 2013 at 1:45:45 pm

Agreed. Fortunately for me I rarely use keyframing because it was so terrible in FCP 7 also. I'm also not sure why you thought it was good in Avid, I thought it was atrocious there too. The only software I've ever used that comes close to being usable is AE, and even that could use a lot of help. I don't know what it is about keyframing that no one seems to be able to get it right.

However, I can't agree with the rant. I've never heard anyone "defending" keyframing in X. I think we're all in agreement that is sucks. But, the notion that one aspect of the software (which I personally rarely would use anyways) makes it unusable I don't think is right. Don't like FCP X? Move on. The boons do outweigh the banes as far as I'm concerned.



Return to posts index


Nikolas Bäurle
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 22, 2013 at 3:46:25 pm

The keyframing really needs improvement, but its not useless. I've been using it a lot in the last few months and I've figured out its quirks and how to work with them, I don't do simple edits, in my case I like and need Bézier curves for what I'm doing currently.

But how much keyframing do we really do as editors? Over the years I've bee involved with different kinds of formats and when I'm doing high end work for commercials or TV I rarely get asked to animate anything complicated. Perhaps some basic title animation. And most editors I know, myself included use other software to do any complex keyframing anyway, I use motion, others I know prefer AFX.

I never liked Avids keyframing, but I've always liked working with the software. FCP Legacy was affordable, that's why most of us got it in the first place, honestly I never really liked Legacys UI, but I had to make it work and I still like and use the software a lot.

The fact is that Xs quirky Keyframing issues haven't hindered me to do my work, especially since X is so damned fast (imac 2013, SSD, thunderbolt drive).


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 23, 2013 at 5:58:08 am

[Nikolas Bäurle] "I never liked Avids keyframing, but I've always liked working with the software."

Let's face it, in video edits, quite a lot of the keyframing is simple linear moves. A push on something, a photo montage, etc. What I liked in Avid, aside from the fact that you could actually copy and paste keyframes, was that when you had a keyframe at the start and end of a clip, then added a dissolve, it would actually expand the keyframes out to cover the dissolve. I guess it could screw you up if that's not what you wanted, but 99.9% of the time that was what I wanted. Legacy and X both default to not extending the keyframes. So you either have to make your keyframes, add your dissolve and extend them manually, or you have to make your keyframes in the dark with the dissolves already in place.


Return to posts index

Nikolas Bäurle
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 23, 2013 at 4:03:05 pm

Bret, I didn't know Avid extended Keyframing:-) I never thought of that, since I always thought it was normal to move keyframes after adding transitions.

I have to admit that I've rarely had to use Avids Keyframing, and in my case its actually more about the way that Avid dealt with effects in general that I stopped liking once I started using FCP 2. To me it was more a user interface issue than anything else. The fact that you could simply drag a jpeg into FCP, and didn't have to use the pan and scan effect was one of my main issues, and I liked not having to nest each effect. At some point I started fiddling with AFX and Shake, and I kept on getting FCP jobs, so I only and still use Avid at DW-TV, and in Newsediting or Documentaries there just isn't much animating going on, since the grafics department delivers all that.

In the last few years though I've had to animate jpegs and build some cut-out style animations more and more, and Motion has come in very handy. For the things I'm doing, AFX is too much, Motion is more intuitive to use in my opinion, and for the simple things its faster.

"Always look on the bright side of life" - Monty Python



Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 25, 2013 at 5:47:19 pm

If you're using the pan and scan effect, isn't that ancient? Just for those that didn't anti up for the 3D box? I'm dating myself. I was using Avid around 96-2002. If I wanted to pan and scan a pic, well I'd use After Effects because Avid wasn't resolution independent. But if I had to use avid I'd just use the 3D motion effect (or whatever it's called) and keyframe the pan and scan. If your keyframes fell on the first and last frames, then you could stretch out the clip and the first and last keyframes would go with. I think every clip always had a first and last keyframe. It was annoying if you had a start effect, then an ending effect and you wanted to lengthen the middle. I'd usually split the clip and extend it in the middle. Splitting and rolling out the middle didn't effect the keyframes. So like anything else it had it's quirks. I just found Avids defaulted to what you'd normally use. Unlike FCP 7, and to a higher extent FCP X where sometimes you just can't get the linear move to work or get it not to ease in/out.

Funny about learning AE. Many years ago I learned photoshop, and then I opened a quick tutorial on AE and it was instantaneously obvious as to how the app worked. It was simply photoshop layers in motion. You could precompose of course, but that wasn't too tough to understand. In fact, photoshop later added pre comps in the form of folders in the layer stack. To me, motion is a bit scattered. It's not very visually intuitive as to what keyframe applies to what and what effect is nested with what layer, etc. Since the "pre comps" are all visible right there in the main timeline. And there's only one timeline in a project! What's up with that? Extremely limiting. I'll do entire graphics packages that utilize similar elements. Just like ol' FCP 7 I'll have a folder of compositions. And the render que, what a tool! I use it as my history in a sense. I can see what I've output and how long it took to render. If I rerender something I'll delete the previous render from the que. When a whole project is done, with all the different elements like lower 3rds, main titles, effects, transitions, subtitles, whatever, I can always reopen a project and just hit rerender in the render que and recreate all the anims.

When FCP 1.x came along nested sequences made perfect sense. They were just like AE nested comps. I still remember talking at the local Avid group one time about when you should jump over and use AE instead of the built in Avid fx. I pointed out that AE had some basic stuff you could in no way to in Avid. Like nested comps (avid weren't really that functional of nests), resolution independence, and layer modes (like add, multiply, hard light, screen, etc). FCP was pretty new in those days and after I went home, I realized that even in it's infantile 1.x state, FCP could do all those things. So even in v1 FCP was a better animation and compositing editor than Avid. It had a lot of power under the hood. Just needed refinement around the edges. FCP X is kinda like that today. It does so many things better than Avid, 7, and CC, but it still lacks some refinement in some basic areas.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 25, 2013 at 1:52:17 pm

[Brett Sherman] "The only software I've ever used that comes close to being usable is AE, and even that could use a lot of help. I don't know what it is about keyframing that no one seems to be able to get it right."

What do you think everyone is missing on keyframing? What sorts of features are you looking for?

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

Andy Neil
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 22, 2013 at 3:51:01 pm

[Bret Williams] "FWIW Motion is pretty much crap at keyframing too. "

I couldn't disagree more with you about keyframing in Motion. Motion is actually excellent at keyframing and very versatile. It's only real issues are in dealing with selecting and moving keyframes under certain circumstances in the keyframe editor.

But in Motion, you can get great animation without even using keyframes by using behaviors instead. In fact, because I have issues with keyframing in FCPX, I've taken to creating stackable move behavior effects that I can apply in FCPX to give me much better animations quicker than I can trying to keyframe in FCPX alone.

That is until I saw Nikolas's solution to ease curves in X by using the inspector. Good on you Nikolas.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Chris Jacek
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 23, 2013 at 3:50:52 am

If the best argument for keyframing in Motion is to use behaviors, then isn't that in and of itself an indictment of Motion's keyframing process? I'm all for scripting to save time. I think expressions are the best thing to happen to AE in the past 10 years. But if the basic functionality of AE keyframes was subpar, as it is in Motion, expressions would not change that fact. Until you tell me that I can grab a whole stack of keyframes from different layers, representing different parameters, drag on them with a modifier key, and proportionally shrink or expanding their timing together, I won't be impressed.

Professor, Producer, Editor
and former Apple Employee


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 23, 2013 at 5:49:25 am

[Chris Jacek] "Until you tell me that I can grab a whole stack of keyframes from different layers, representing different parameters, drag on them with a modifier key, and proportionally shrink or expanding their timing together, I won't be impressed."

You're describing AE's keyframing, right? Because AE can certainly do that. Easily.


Return to posts index

Chris Jacek
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 23, 2013 at 11:51:12 am

[Bret Williams] "You're describing AE's keyframing, right? Because AE can certainly do that. Easily."

Yes, exactly. The option-drag (or alt-drag on Windows) of an array of keyframes is probably in my "Top 10" of AE additions over the years.

Professor, Producer, Editor
and former Apple Employee


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 23, 2013 at 10:09:15 pm

[Bret Williams] "
You're describing AE's keyframing, right? Because AE can certainly do that. Easily."


I'm not sure I'd say it's easy to manipulate multiple keyframes in AE. There is absolutely no keyframe grouping in AE. So you have to hunt them down everytime you want to make an adjustment. Often finding all the keyframes you want to adjust is like finding a few needles in a haystack and sometimes and errant click will make you have to start selecting over again. I think there's a lot of room for improvement even in AE.



Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 23, 2013 at 7:37:14 am

[Chris Jacek] "If the best argument for keyframing in Motion is to use behaviors, then isn't that in and of itself an indictment of Motion's keyframing process?"

No. It means that behaviors are incredibly easy to use and are a very powerful way to get great animated moves without having to keyframe. Or script It says nothing about keyframing.

[Chris Jacek] "Until you tell me that I can grab a whole stack of keyframes from different layers, representing different parameters, drag on them with a modifier key, and proportionally shrink or expanding their timing together, I won't be impressed."

Then prepare to be impressed because Motion can do that very easily. Nobody beats AE for keyframing, but you seem to be laboring under false prejudices if you think Motion can't do things like that.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 23, 2013 at 2:38:08 pm

Keyframing in AE is absolutely not subpar, nor is it in Motion. Both applications offer very precise and intuitive keyframe animation options. Behaviors in Motion are actually quite powerful. You can apply a Behavior to quickly create a complex animation and then (for most Behaviors) you can convert the Behavior into physical keyframes (CMD+K) to further tweak the animation.

Yes you can easily paste entire collections of keyframes from multiple layers onto others in Motion. Not by option-dragging to be fair, but by a simple copy/paste action, which comes down to the same.

And yes you can proportionally shrink or expand the timing of keyframes in Motion. Actually this works exactly like in AE.

Let's face it, in video edits, quite a lot of the keyframing is simple linear moves. A push on something, a photo montage, etc.

I totally agree, that's what we use keyframes for most of the time in an NLE. And just like you I really liked the auto extending capability in Avid. I cannot tell you how frustrating it was when we switched to FCP having to manually adjust every keyframe whenever you wanted to extend an animation or when adding a dissolve between two animated clips.

But in FCPX you do have a similar feature. When you use the Crop > Ken Burns effect to create a simple linear move or push and then you extend your clip the animation timing will adapt automatically. Same as when you put a transition between two animated clips the start and end of the animations will automatically extend under the transition. This does not work for complex manual keyframing yet, but for simple linear moves it is perfect and we use it all the time.

Now back to the OP: as a hardcore FCPX user and proponent I agree that manual keyframing in the Viewer is shite. So I don't blame you for ranting, we all have had such moments in X ((-:

Workarounds do not justify the lack of proper interpolation behavior in the Viewer. Fortunately there are a few ways to skin a cat in X and keyframing in the Inspector does work quite well, same as using the Crop tool for creating simple linear moves and pushes works exceptionally well and fast. All of these should be grouped into one powerful keyframe animation editor like in Motion, or we should get a fully seamless integration with Motion straight from the FCPX timeline. Now wouldn't that be "awesome".



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 23, 2013 at 9:44:21 pm

[Ronny Courtens] "All of these should be grouped into one powerful keyframe animation editor like in Motion, or we should get a fully seamless integration with Motion straight from the FCPX timeline. Now wouldn't that be "awesome"."

I question whether that's possible. FCP X was a total rewrite. I don't think Motion was. Its rewrite was more cosmetic than functional. In fact, certain processes work completely differently in FCP X versus Motion. For example, if you put a 23.98p clip into a 29.97i timeline (in the NTSC world), X applies the proper 2:3:2:3 cadence to the fields. Motion applies a 2:2:2:4 cadence, which is wrong. That's how FCP 7 works/worked, so it seems like Motion still has some legacy code to deal with under the hood.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 23, 2013 at 10:08:08 pm

[Ronny Courtens] "Behaviors in Motion are actually quite powerful. You can apply a Behavior to quickly create a complex animation and then (for most Behaviors) you can convert the Behavior into physical keyframes (CMD+K) to further tweak the animation."

Agreed! One of the terrific things about Motion.


[Ronny Courtens] "All of these should be grouped into one powerful keyframe animation editor like in Motion, or we should get a fully seamless integration with Motion straight from the FCPX timeline. Now wouldn't that be "awesome"."

It would, indeed. But I agree with Oliver's assessment. Tighter integration would be wonderful, but Motion is still very much the program it was three years ago, while X is a completely different beast. I suspect that if true integration were easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Still, it would be nice. Awesome, even.


Return to posts index

Craig Shamwell
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 27, 2013 at 6:32:17 am

Man....I'm perplexed?? I don't see the problems you all are having with FCPX's key-framing!!If I want an object to move, be it a text element or an object, I find FCPX's Key-Framing to be as simple as it gets.
Once I size the image to its final size, I position it, move the timeline to the point where it will rest, set an end keyframe (KF) in the viewer while in "transform" mode. Just one click adds a KF to all perimeters. If you don't change any of them, it doesn't matter....less clicks! After setting the KF, I then move the timeline to where it will start, position the object and re-size it to it's starting position. set an anchor KF, use the arrow key and nudge the timeline one frame and set a starting KF. (That description took only 138 words)
And at times, I start at the beginning. But this is where some get lost, because once you set the "first" KF, anything you do to the object in terms of transforming, cropping or opacity, FCPX will automatically set a new KF. That's why its better to KF in reverse!!

As far as linear and smooth, do any of you know to click on any of the anchor points that are visible when you activate a clip and click on the "transform" tool? There are very useful tools for creating very cool movement!!
Look, while you may rant about Key-framing, I rant about those who crush FCPX without taking the time to LEARN what it can really do! So lets take it a little bit further. Lets say that same object you will want to FADE OUT after holding for 5 seconds? Making sure there is enough "clip", place the time line at the place where you want the fad out to start. Again, click on the KF in the viewer(new anchor KF), nudge one frame forward, add another (starting)KF, move the timeline to the point where it will be at zero visibility, go to the opacity slider located in the 'Compositing" window and slide it to zero! That's it! You don't even have to add another KF! Its done automatically!
So while I do appreciate a well deserved Rant from time to time, I just don't see it applicable here. In all fairness, it just sounds like you have not grasped the concept of Key-framing my friend. And by the looks of it here, you are not alone!
But let me not end on a "cut"...Seriously, pay for a month of FCPX Tutorials. It will only be like 30 bucks. Put aside 1 hour every day to learn something new. FCPX is full of hidden stuff that does what a lot say they can't do! I make money using FCPX too, and i would not be using it if Key-framing was as difficult as you make it out to be.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 27, 2013 at 3:09:54 pm

[Craig Shamwell] "After setting the KF, I then move the timeline to where it will start, position the object and re-size it to it's starting position. set an anchor KF, use the arrow key and nudge the timeline one frame and set a starting KF."

Your description is exactly the reason why many people are frustrated with FCPX keyframing. It's not intuitive, and it requires a different set of "rules" from other NLEs/programs if you need more than 2 keyframes. Even in your explanation, you're using 3 keyframes to do a move that other NLEs only require 2 keyframes, and you think WE are the crazy ones.

Personally, this entire issue could be solved by simply defaulting X's keyframing to linear instead of "smooth" interpolation on position and scale keyframes. Don't put smoothing in unless I want smoothing. Or at least have the forethought to disable smoothing between keyframes that are the same value.

If you're advocating adding 3 keyframes when you should only need 2, or keyframing in reverse, then there's something wrong with the way keyframing is handled in the program, and knowing how to work around the problem doesn't mean that it's not there.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Nikolas Bäurle
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 27, 2013 at 5:23:47 pm

Craig, I agree with you that most problems with Keyframes that many have been having are easily solvable. The default Bezier movement between keyrames that many are complaining about are is simply a matter of clicking on the control frame in the viewer and changing it back to linear, or using the inspector. In my opinion the keyframing is very fast.

Now, I have been having discussions with Bret Williams and he pointed out that if you do a scale and position move you do get a small s-curve before it hits the next keyframe. You do not have this problem in AFX and in Motion you get a curve if you scale that you can change back to linear in the keyframe editor

I'm currently doing a lot of MTV style, fast curvy moves, making stills look like handheld camera moves etc. I love it for that and I get it done much faster, than Avid or FCP7. And this is one of the reasons I got the job as head editor at Promiflash in Berlin. They didn't want too many linear moves, do something different. And when I do need something linear the Ken Burns effect is pretty good.

When you need that organic look, as if images are being thrown into the frame or fall out, X is very good.

True linear move in X is still kind of quirky, but not a reason for some of the angry reactions we've bee seeing. There still is the option of Motion, very easy to learn and AFX. Most Avid and Premiere editors I know use AFX, there must be a reason.

I like the Keyframing interface in X better than in 7, but I'm hoping we get an improved keyfame editor, where I could also ad a temporal interpolation not just for opacity. Some curve control in the timeline would be nice.

"Always look on the bright side of life" - Monty Python



Return to posts index

John Smith
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Nov 17, 2013 at 5:22:35 pm

Keyframing was designed by a complete ignoramus.... is there no way to select two or more keyframes and then drag them to a different point on the clip/region. All I want to do is drag two positioning keyframes from one end of a text clip/region in the timeline, to the other end. But I can't find a way to select both keyframes. I don't want to drag them individually (obviously) as then I have to faff around making sure the number of frames between them is the same as it was prior to moving them. If there is a way, then it's about as intuitively assignable as something that's been lost in the depths of the Amazon rainforest for 10,000 years :P

thanks...

2.4ghz 12 core Mac Pro 2012, 32GB DDR3 DIMM Registered ECC, Mavericks OS X 10.9


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Nov 17, 2013 at 5:34:12 pm

[John Smith] "is there no way to select two or more keyframes and then drag them to a different point on the clip/region. All I want to do is drag two positioning keyframes from one end of a text clip/region in the timeline, to the other end. But I can't find a way to select both keyframes"

Currently, you can't. Hopefully they'll get around to fixing this soon...

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

John Smith
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Nov 17, 2013 at 6:39:29 pm

Thanks for reply... though it's a bit like making a 4 legged chair and forgetting to put the forth leg on. They call the technical help in Apple Shops the Genius Bar, the one time I tried to use them they couldn't even provide me an answer to the simplest of requests and told me to phone Apple Support, pure genius that! ;p

2.4ghz 12 core Mac Pro 2012, 32GB DDR3 DIMM Registered ECC, Mavericks OS X 10.9


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Nov 17, 2013 at 9:49:25 pm

[John Smith] "like making a 4 legged chair and forgetting to put the forth leg on."

lol. I don't think they forgot, probably just needed to figure out how to make it work properly. In the new iMovie, which some feel foreshadows possible features in the next X version, you can select multiple KF's and drag them around...

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

John Smith
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Nov 21, 2013 at 3:32:01 pm

Work it out? It really isn't that complicated, if you have programmed in the automation function for one keyframe then it's hardly any work to make it work for multiple keyframes, you can't be talking much more than a few lines of code, ceratinly one basic procedure linking to whatever code/procedures they are currently using... this isn't a case of working it out, it's a case of chucking out poorly tested code and using developers who don't use the application. I can't see how anything else explains it... I have just been trying to use the keyframing to change the appearance of text over a duration of a few seconds. It will add the keyframes, though not display them in the timeline, but only the first set keyframe will cause any change. The second keyframe only displays when you delete the previous keyframe... now if you can't keyframe the text, why have the ability to add the keyframes? This software is a 1-2+ years old now and still a stinking heap of BETA crap on so many levels and on so many features I could write an entire book on the subject.

I've suffered this application for a long while in the assumption that it was going to improve, but really it doesn't, and the preferential elements of it that I have stuck to it for are seeming less and less worth the eternal hassle. Adobe Premier is calling.... I wouldn't recommend anyone to learn this software, best off not wasting your time getting into something that is never going to be made into a solid application. Apple have lost it, spend less time of the effing iPhones and get back to things that are actually useful in more ways than just being a pointless distraction. Apple is just money money money, well developed innovation is really in the back seat.

2.4ghz 12 core Mac Pro 2012, 32GB DDR3 DIMM Registered ECC, Mavericks OS X 10.9


Return to posts index

Matt Kemp
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 23, 2018 at 10:09:15 pm

5 years later, a whole range of amazing new features and functionality introduced to FCPX.

And keyframing is still complete shite.

What a joke.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 27, 2018 at 9:30:47 pm

[Matt Kemp] "5 years later, a whole range of amazing new features and functionality introduced to FCPX.

And keyframing is still complete shite.

What a joke."


Definitely still lame.

Also definitely still NOT getting in the way of X's adoption by large swaths of general editors very much, based on the public sales evidence.

So we just keep waiting and hoping the bigger and more important stuff that DOES seem to drive tool adoption for X - eventually gets to a place where more agile key framing becomes something Apple feels like addressing.

Until then, X editors have all learned to do it, when it's required, with the very modest tools we have.

Such is life.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 27, 2018 at 10:47:35 pm

Interesting because I don’t see how much better Premiere is on this subject. Maybe I don’t use key frames enough. So if it’s so “shite”, do tell. Just putting that out there has no meaning. Tell us why.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Visual Storyteller
https://vimeo.com/channels/1322525
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Matt Kemp
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 27, 2018 at 11:36:01 pm

I do agree, and for the most part it hasn't stopped me using FCPX for 90% of my work.

I guess it's just frustrating. Having mastered the magnetic timeline and all the other functions which make FCPX unique, I see it's power and potential. But then these ridiculous amateur oversights (like keyframing, and to a lesser degree, colour correction, amongst others) just stop it being a really amazing piece of software truly worthy of pro use.

It's so close, but so far away..

Imagine if we had all the best bit of X and all the best bits of 7 in one package. It would be an incredible piece of software.

As it is, using FCPX always leaves a bad taste in my mouth one way or another, whereas Premierem even though it's slower and in a lot of ways feels more old fashioned than X, gives me the warm and fuzzies because it makes me feel I'm working with pro kit.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 28, 2018 at 9:38:12 am

[Matt Kemp] "a lesser degree, colour correction, amongst others)"

Latest CC tools look pretty "pro" to me.

[Matt Kemp] " truly worthy of pro use.

It's so close, but so far away.."


For you maybe, for all the "Pro" FCPX users I know - it's very close.

Is it perfect - no but saying it's not worthy of "Pro" use is ridiculous

[Matt Kemp] "gives me the warm and fuzzies because it makes me feel I'm working with pro kit."

Well if it makes you feel like a "Pro" then good for you :)


Return to posts index

Matt Kemp
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 28, 2018 at 10:52:06 am

Yeah I guess I should've known that last post was going to generate that kind of response.

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, the FCPX apologists can kid themselves as much as they like, but this is not a serious product, and won't be for some years. Like I said, I am a committed FCPX user since the first version. I edit everything from promos to feature length docs, to VR video, and there are things I love about it, primarily it's speed of ingest, edit and output.

But the multitude sub-standard features such crappy keyfaming, colour correction and the ridiculous iMovie effects and title functions keep this at the prosumer level, which as far as I can tell is exactly what Apple intended. Sure, I've loaded up on all the third party extensions which help a lot (Color Finale for example), but as far as I'm concerned any app which relies on third party plugins to bring it up to par with Premiere or other NLEs doesn't deserve that much credit.

Sure, pros can use it, because they're pros. But the death of 7 and inception of X lowered the bar for high end video editing on a Mac. It was called iMovie Pro since day one, and despite the new features, it's still just an (admittedly greatly) improved iMovie Pro.

This isn't a statement of fact, this is my opinion as someone who edits video every day. You can agree or disagree, it really makes no difference to me. I'm no Premiere evangelist or FCPX-basher. One last time to reiterate, I use it every day. But I'm not suckering myself into believing it's the best thing since sliced bread. It isn't.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 28, 2018 at 6:37:33 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on May 28, 2018 at 6:39:17 pm

[Matt Kemp] "But the multitude sub-standard features such crappy keyfaming, colour correction and the ridiculous iMovie effects and title functions keep this at the prosumer level, which as far as I can tell is exactly what Apple intended. Sure, I've loaded up on all the third party extensions which help a lot (Color Finale for example), but as far as I'm concerned any app which relies on third party plugins to bring it up to par with Premiere or other NLEs doesn't deserve that much credit."

Just curious, why did you mention Color Finale, rather than the re-build of all the color tools in 10.4?

Seems to me you would have concentrated on the stuff INSIDE X, rather than on the external plug ins?

What, precisely is "crappy" about the 10.4.1 (current) color tools in X?

Or maybe for clarity - what do the competitors - either Premiere or AVID do - that X doesn't - in terms of grading inside the NLE environment?

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Matt Kemp
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 28, 2018 at 9:39:54 pm

Maybe the word 'crappy' was a bit harsh. Certainly the inclusion of colour wheels is a huge improvement over the colour board.

And again, this is all purely subjective - I'm not trying to insult anyone who finds X a great tool. For many, many functions I also thinks it's really useful. But for colour correction (seeing as though you ask), I'm used to tools like Lumetri, curves adjustments, gamma controls and other features which are pretty basic in Premiere, After Effects and Photoshop, all of which I use extensively.

I know for example that Resolve was born as a dedicated grading software, but can you really imagine a series DaVinci user going to the colour wheels in X and thinking 'wow, this is great'.

Nope.

Again, it goes back to what Apple intended with X. If it wanted to produce a piece of software which developed organically on from 7 with groundbreaking new features such as the magnetic timeline, but with all the pro functionality found in the other high end NLEs, it could have. But that was never the intention. So I think it's disingenuous and fanboy-ish to defend the 'pro' credentials of X when it clearly was never designed to meet those kinds of high end demands. I like X, I use it. But I'm not about to defend it to the death just to be dogmatic.

For certain projects I wouldn't dream of using Premiere. For others, I wouldn't go near FCPX. I just don't really see why the debate can't be a bit more honest. My two (or maybe now 20) cents: For quick turnaround ingest, cut and output projects, FCPX rules. For graphics, grading and motion effects (and anything which requires key framing), it sucks. No NLE is perfect, that's why we have the luxury of choosing the one which is right the project we're working on.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 29, 2018 at 1:15:08 am
Last Edited By Bill Davis on May 29, 2018 at 1:20:18 am

[Matt Kemp] "I'm used to tools like Lumetri, curves adjustments, gamma controls and other features which are pretty basic in Premiere, After Effects and Photoshop, all of which I use extensively. "

Uh, X's new color tools include curves, (hue vs sat, hue verses hue - and more!) - AND they have a really awesome way to translate on-screen visual clicks into adjustment points that let you manipulate only the colors present in your shot that are important to you.

It also has lift, gamma, and gain.

These work in Rec 709 and ALSO Rec2020 - clearly preparing for the ProResRAW environment they knew was coming but that the market was a bit surprised by.

So again, what do you feel is still missing in X verses how Premiere Pro works today?

Can you help me understand what's possible in PPro that's currently not Possible in the current build of X?

Thanks.

Oh, and while you might personally "feel" that X is only good for modest projects, but it appears others feel a bit differently. Check this out.

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/2054-cut-with-fcp-x-the-prestigiou...

The first few paragraphs seems to indicate it's a bit larger a project than what you conceive of as in X's "wheelhouse?"

Just an observation.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Matt Kemp
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 29, 2018 at 8:38:31 am

Feel a bit bad hijacking this thread with these thoughts, after all I only came here after frustratedly googling 'why is key framing in FCPX so bad' ☺

I wouldn't say that FCPX is only suitable for modest projects at all. With a pro using it, high end products can be made. I myself have used FCPX almost exclusively on projects which have gone on to win some awards. I also don't think it's representative to write an A-B list of what X can't do which Pro can (although for VR, which I work a lot with, that list certainly exists).

It's like with the keyframe question. It's not that you can't keyframe in X, it's that the function is badly designed, making it difficult to work with and adding default ease functions which Apple has decided we all need but which more often than not need to be manually removed.

Anyway I think the point really is that different pieces of software suit different kinds of projects, and people feel more or less comfortable and happy with different suites for different reasons. In that sense I think it's healthy to be system agnostic. If you have access to both Mac and Windows machines, FCPX, Adobe CC and Resolve, then the bases are covered for whatever the clients throw at you :)


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 28, 2018 at 6:33:25 pm

[Matt Kemp] "Imagine if we had all the best bit of X and all the best bits of 7 in one package. It would be an incredible piece of software.

As it is, using FCPX always leaves a bad taste in my mouth one way or another, whereas Premierem even though it's slower and in a lot of ways feels more old fashioned than X, gives me the warm and fuzzies because it makes me feel I'm working with pro kit."


Hard to argue with any of this.

It's largely how an editor "feels" about the software. Each has plusses and minuses. Which of those lights up YOUR emotions determines which path will feel best to you.

I value the feeling that I'm moving into what I suspect will be a different digital video future - as rapidly as possible - and I'm very willing to give up lots of "comfort" in order to achieve that.

Another editor will much more highly value the "warm and fuzzies" (as you term it) of familiarity.

It's the central polarizing principal of all of this, I suspect.

And it's as natural (on both sides), as breathing.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Matt Kemp
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 28, 2018 at 9:55:26 pm

I think you make a really good point Bill, and it's an easily forgotten element of all this - how the software makes you feel while using it.

X makes me feel like an amateur, forced to adopt techniques and stylistic choices which Apple think is the way it should be done, and I find it frustrating and occasionally borderline insulting (I really should get out more) :)


Return to posts index

Paul Golden
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 29, 2018 at 9:52:36 pm

Stipulation: I love FCPX, but I'll give my two cents on key framing.

I much prefer After Effects's much more robust implementation for several reasons. (I don't know Premiere enough to offer an opinion). The features that FCPX is lacking as keyframes are the following:

1) Lack of hold frames:
Right now in FCPX, you have to use two keyframes: one at the beginning value one at the end before the value change. This is tedious and fraught with opportunities for mistakes. AE has a hold frame that can be converted to a non-hold frame or back with ease.

2) No roving keyframe expansion:
If you want to stretch out the action, you can't lasso the keyframes and option drag them out to create a rove over time function.

3) Copy Paste a drag:
In AE, you just copy/cut and paste keyframes as normal. In FCPX, you have to find a special copy Keyframes command in the menus, which gets old real quick.

4) Not all things are key-frameable
Certain parameters, which I'm not sure why, are not key-framable in FCPX

5) Keyframe in Timeline awkward:
The control-V expand of keyframes in the timeline brings up a very poorly interface where you either have too much space or not enough space devoted to the keyframes you want to control. AE is consistant.

6) No twirl down values in Timeline:
FCPX parameters must be changed in the Info panel which is a ways from where the keyframes live. AE allows twirl down and adjustment of keyframe parameters in the same line of sight just off to the left of key frame.

7) No scripting or expressions in FCPX:
I know that it's not After Effects, but the expressions language in AE is very powerful. FCPX has very basic, non-programmable key frames.

This list is just the stuff off the top of my head. I know FCPX is not a composite tool like After Effects, but the closer it gets to AE's keyframe abilities, the sooner I can stay in FCPX for more of the time.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 16, 2018 at 1:37:58 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Jun 16, 2018 at 3:21:59 pm

[Paul Golden] "I much prefer After Effects's much more robust implementation for several reasons."

Okay, so the premise of the whole thing already is just plain ludicrous, since you're actually comparing a COMPOSITING app with AN NLE and are surprised that the options aren't congruent??! 😂

Oh please. If anything, maybe compare it to MOTION to make a mildly legitimate point? Let me do that for you.

AE vs Motion, as it should be, if anything:


[Paul Golden] "1) Lack of hold frames: "

Got 'em.



[Paul Golden] "2) No roving keyframe expansion:"

Check.



[Paul Golden] "3) Copy Paste a drag:
In AE, you just copy/cut and paste keyframes as normal. In FCPX, you have to find a special copy Keyframes command in the menus, which gets old real quick."


Wait… so you've been in that menu so many times and not ONCE have you noticed the various COMMANDS for each and every one of those? Four in all. Or are you saying you're actually not able to remember to simply put a ⌥⇧ in front of an X, C, V and ⌫ key? 😄



[Paul Golden] "4) Not all things are key-frameable"

Like what? Anything that actually makes SENSE to keyframe most definitely is keyframable. Or are you wanting to keyframe the SPATIAL CONFORM or something else that would be completely nonsensical to want to keyframe?



[Paul Golden] "5) Keyframe in Timeline awkward:"

Again. FCP is NOT a compositor to begin with. But I will grant you that what it has certainly needs overall improvement, which I'm sure is coming.



[Paul Golden] "6) No twirl down values in Timeline: "

Ditto. But if you need more than FCP has to offer, you go to Motion. Exactly as you'd do with Premiere, too.

In which case Motion's integration with FCP in fact far exceeds that of AE's integration with Premiere as well btw. But they're trying hard.



[Paul Golden] "7) No scripting or expressions in FCPX:"

Called "Behaviors"… check.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook


Return to posts index

Paul Golden
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 16, 2018 at 7:16:52 pm

First off, the distinctions between NLEs and compositing programs are artificial at best. AE is as much an editing program its own way. Of course AE is a more robust compositor and animation tool than FCPX, but my point is that AE’s implementation of key framing is something where FCPX could take a lesson.

There are some times that I will do elaborate amounts of compositing in FCPX because I like the tools there and the fluidity of the experience and real time playback compared to AE or Motion. As FCPX adds a multitude of EFX capability (3D, masking, etc.) , to say that we need to be hobbled with primitive keyframing because FCPX doesn’t “aspire” to being a compositing app is unhelpful.

The points I made about the keyframing differences are where AE does something in a more user friendly way that requires less steps or offers more precision than what you can achieve with FCPX. For example, a hold key is one click in AE, and it requires having two identical keys (one at the front, one at the back) to accomplish the same in FCPX. Yes you can remember a modifier before Command-C in copying keyframes, but why have that when Command-C is more straightforward and fewer keystrokes?

There is nothing inherent in the design of FCPX that precludes improvement of the key framing abilities. But anyone who has used both will tell you that AE has FCPX beat by a long shot.

As for Motion, it is irrelevant because going to Motion is as much a pain as going to AE when you’re working primarily in FCPX. There’s no advantage from a workflow standpoint. Motion offers some nice tools, but it doesn’t really replace the lack of decent keyframe support within FCPX.

This is not an Adobe vs Apple thing. I vastly prefer FCPX to Premiere, but I also prefer AE to Motion.

But to give me an elaborate excuse about why FCPX can’t improve its keyframing because it’s only an NLE is like saying the color correction couldn’t be improved because its not Resolve.


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 30, 2018 at 10:12:33 am

It is rubbish.

Still buggy - position your playhead over a clip and then add a keyframe using the effects window and sometimes it just jumps into a totally different position on the timeline - usually out by a couple of frames, meaning you need to manually adjust it.

In Ae or Pr, if you have some keyframes on a specific track (easy now, I know these are roles or whatever the shit we are supposed to call them), you can just elastic band them all and move them down the timeline. You can also grab a few and hit delete to remove them. In FCPX you need to manually click on each individual one and move it with a shift click, or right click and delete. Far too convoluted.

It would be incredibly cool if FCPX looked in a similar direction to Resolve and put a Motion tab inside FCPX, along with a Logic tab for audio finishing.....one more expensive license, a limited one just for FCPX, or adoption for each user that has bought all programs. Just imagine - instead of clicking on the titles tab, you click on a tab that opens Motion inside FCPX. Custom transitions, titles, animations, key framing, compositing and more, available inside your FCPX workflow. Another one lets you work just on the audio in a Logic X workspace. They could even implement a robust apple-ised version of pixelmator for adjusting still frames too. Barely any rendering between the 3 programs. No xml exports. Just simple to use Pro tabs that allow for finishing more complex projects. The only reason to ever export an EDL or XML would be to work between Resolve and/or Fusion for more complex work.....

So cool, so effortless, solves the keyframing issues for 95% of what is required, and ties 3 great pieces of software inside one app.... Just saying.

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 30, 2018 at 11:19:25 am

[Tom Sefton] "It would be incredibly cool if FCPX looked in a similar direction to Resolve and put a Motion tab inside FCPX, along with a Logic tab for audio finishing.....one more expensive license, a limited one just for FCPX, or adoption for each user that has bought all programs. Just imagine - instead of clicking on the titles tab, you click on a tab that opens Motion inside FCPX. "

I just love how everyone is so happy with FCPX, but then wishes it were something it isn't. ☺

This is a great thought, but the odds of Apple doing something like this are slim to none. Their headspace is simply in a different place these days.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 30, 2018 at 11:26:03 am

I just love how everyone is so happy with FCPX, but then wishes it were something it isn't. ☺







"you're not happy with anything. You don't want most of it, you want all of it...."

Human Nature - if something else does something better, you want it!

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk


Return to posts index

Matt Kemp
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 30, 2018 at 12:48:00 pm

I don't think expecting something as fundamental as keyframing to actually work is too much to ask, do you?

FCPX doesn't need to be different, it just needs to be better.


Return to posts index

Paul Golden
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 30, 2018 at 6:34:51 pm

There's not much to love about FCPX key framing. It's pretty basic and could use improvement. Any of the suggestions I made would not change the fundamental nature of FCPX, which is a really good NLE. There's a surprising amount of compositing capability in FCPX, so if the animation tools (of which key framing is a part) could keep up, I would be more inclined to stay in FCP for certain projects and not bail to AE.


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 31, 2018 at 6:56:38 pm

Where is Bill Davis saying "you're holding it wrong!"?

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 31, 2018 at 8:51:45 pm

[Andy Field] "Where is Bill Davis saying "you're holding it wrong!"?
"


to Bill's credit - this is one area he admits X needs work on and has already stated as such in this thread.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on May 31, 2018 at 10:38:07 pm

Not even Bill can defend key framing in FCPX


Return to posts index

Mark Smith
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 1, 2018 at 3:49:44 pm

What is odd is that one can set a range around some audio keyframes and drag them , but it can’t be done with video key frames. Seems like an odd omission in the area of video keyframing.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 16, 2018 at 1:55:17 pm

[Tom Sefton] "you can just elastic band them all and move them down the timeline"

You mean like you can "Range Tool" them in FCP and move them down the timeline? Yeah, that's cool.



[Tom Sefton] "In FCPX you need to manually click on each individual one and move it with a shift click, or right click and delete"

Yeah. Oh wait. No, you don't. Since that would of course be complete nonsense, right? Which is why you can shift click first and last and move them (without the need for ⇧ btw, since they are automatically contained vertically or horizontally) or hit ⌥⇧⌫ to delete. Go figger.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: Why is Keyframing in FCPX so shite?
on Jun 16, 2018 at 7:28:56 pm

Fine, those two points completely change my opinion and now fcpx has incredible keyframing abilities. It’s totally defensible that I can see key frames appear in random parts of the timeline despite the playhead indicating where they should appear.

Go figger

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk


Return to posts index

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