FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCP X or not?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Charlie Austin
FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 3:24:28 am

"I never hear editors complain that they are missing a feature in FCPX that would help them do their jobs better," he says. "Trust me; if they had an issue, they'd be hunting me down."

http://www.studiodaily.com/2014/06/why-detroits-wxyz-made-the-move-to-final...

...just thought it was an interesting story. And on topic! whatever that means anymore... lol

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

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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 7:14:58 am

The whole story sounds like it was written by someone who didn't actually look beyond an Apple solution. If they used AE instead of Motion then the whole story would probably have been about 7 to Pr.

It is good that his editors don't need or want for anything but that doesn't exactly mean a lot to people with different workflows.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 7:43:52 am

Maybe it's because it's late, but the mention of HDV doesn't make sense to me. Is the person trying to use HDV as shorthand for High Def Video in general (as opposed to meaning the HDV codec)?


Return to posts index


Charlie Austin
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 12:50:20 pm

[Michael Gissing] "If they used AE instead of Motion then the whole story would probably have been about 7 to Pr."

Definitely possible. But if it had been, would you have read it and then made the following comment?:

[Michael Gissing] "but that doesn't exactly mean a lot to people with different workflows."

Honestly, one of the reasons I posted this article was to see how quickly someone would come up with a reason that it didn't mean anything. What took you so long? :-)

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

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 1:35:57 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Honestly, one of the reasons I posted this article was to see how quickly someone would come up with a reason that it didn't mean anything."

Charlie,

You get the forum that you make.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 1:58:59 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "[Charlie Austin] "Honestly, one of the reasons I posted this article was to see how quickly someone would come up with a reason that it didn't mean anything."

"Charlie,

You get the forum that you make."


Sure... but it wasn't the main reason for the post. I had that thought as I posted the article, I mainly thought it was an interesting transition story. Particularly the fact that, as 7 was still working, they kept doing what they were doing and just waited for X to be ready for their needs. I think that's probably pretty common. And, AFAIK, 7 still works in Yosemite, so there's no deadline for 7 users yet...

[Franz Bieberkopf] "

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

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


Return to posts index


Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 2:24:01 pm

[Charlie Austin] " I mainly thought it was an interesting transition story. Particularly the fact that, as 7 was still working, they kept doing what they were doing and just waited for X to be ready for their needs. I think that's probably pretty common. And, AFAIK, 7 still works in Yosemite, so there's no deadline for 7 users yet..."

Charlie,

This is much more interesting than your framing in the first post.

My own perspective on the article - first is this bit on the transition to X, which is telling:

"FCPX's integration with Motion templates was the most anticipated benefit of an upgrade for the station, ..."

... secondly, again, we have the primary comparison of X to 7: 2014 and Apple still competing with EOL software from 2009 (as observed by both you and Michael). It's a common refrain here and I don't think it paints as flattering a picture of Apple's capabilities as some think it does.


Franz.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 2:28:44 pm

Maybe it shouldn't have taken this long, but ANY platform move (no matter how beneficial it would be) can take years at a given company, based on training and budgetary considerations.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 4:44:16 pm

[Charlie Austin] "And, AFAIK, 7 still works in Yosemite, so there's no deadline for 7 users yet..."

4K

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index


Charlie Austin
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 6:17:16 pm

[Herb Sevush] "4K"

Sure, but you can still use the program with workarounds. The real "drop deadline" will be when the app ceases to function at all.

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

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 6:33:17 pm

[Charlie Austin] " The real "drop deadline" will be when the app ceases to function at all."

Actually there will be no deadline at all. When an OSX version becomes incompatible with FCP legacy some users will simply freeze the operating system. I froze mine at mountain lion. You can go on for years that way. Every user will have their own breaking point, mine was an increase in the use of 4K elements. For someone else it might be operating system compatibility, for others retirement.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 30, 2014 at 6:35:17 pm

I froze my FCS 3 MacBook Pro 17" on Snow Leopard. Also has CS3 and other stuff that is stable on that OS.

It seems to be a sweet spot for older versions and EOL apps. Even a creaky app like CS6 Dreamweaver, which modern web builders scoff at, but Adobe still includes in CC suites ... works perfectly in Snow Leopard, but is broken in Mavericks.

I picked Snow Leopard because as far as I can tell, that was the last OS that issued ProApp updates (e.g. Frameworks and other files/folders) for FCP 7.0.3

Now my costs are in replacing hardware! $310 Apple flat rate for new motherboard and RAM to fix display issues encountered while -- get this -- making DVDs in StudioPro for an old-school client!

Doug D


Return to posts index


Jim Wiseman
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 7:02:33 pm

It ail be quite a while before news is done in 4K, or anything else in my opinion, and that works very well in FCPX now.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.1.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.5, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1 TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 12:29:01 am

[Charlie Austin]

[Michael Gissing] "but that doesn't exactly mean a lot to people with different workflows."
Honestly, one of the reasons I posted this article was to see how quickly someone would come up with a reason that it didn't mean anything. What took you so long? :-)

So your motive for posting was to get the negative response that you wanted. Hardly an edifying reason.

Sorry I didn't actually give you that. If I said it meant nothing then fine but if you read my response I actually said it doesn't mean a lot to people with different workflows. I think a fair comment and certainly not saying it doesn't mean anything. Indeed saying his editors didn't need or want for anything is in fact a compliment to how it works in that situation. If you read that as saying it is meaningless then fine.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 1:56:30 am

[Michael Gissing] "So your motive for posting was to get the negative response that you wanted. Hardly an edifying reason."

Not really.. as I said in another reply, it was kind of an afterthought, and my reply to you was a knee-jerk reaction. Sorry about that.

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

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


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 1:45:11 pm

[Michael Gissing] "The whole story sounds like it was written by someone who didn't actually look beyond an Apple solution. If they used AE instead of Motion then the whole story would probably have been about 7 to Pr.

It is good that his editors don't need or want for anything but that doesn't exactly mean a lot to people with different workflows.
"


The counterpoint to this is, what if they didn't have to look beyond an Apple solution, or they waited until the solution was ready?

Also, I think the editors DID need and want, and they waited for it. They waited until Apple delivered a suitable (and better) product that helped to standardize and deliver templates easier and faster than before, and once editors were used to the timeline, they actually liked it.

It's not that they didn't look around, it's that they made a decision to wait.


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 1:11:43 pm
Last Edited By Mitch Ives on Jun 27, 2014 at 5:08:50 pm

Kind of makes sense to me. News environments need speed and FCP X has that. Given the "use it and throw it away" approach that news tends to have I wonder if they are using any of the meta data organizational stuff?

As for missing features, in my experience, news stations aren't really pushing the envelope when it comes to complexity, so they probably don't feel anything is missing.

The fact that they're still shooting HDV was curious though... probably still flogging those JVC's...

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

Marcus Moore
BBC too!
on Jun 26, 2014 at 1:43:00 pm
Last Edited By Marcus Moore on Jun 26, 2014 at 2:05:58 pm

Tangental to this (and sure to break Aindreas' mind), someone on Facebook recently posted they've been training 20 BBC editors for the transition from 7 to X.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: BBC too!
on Jun 26, 2014 at 2:19:29 pm

[Marcus Moore] "someone on Facebook "

Seems legit.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: BBC too!
on Jun 26, 2014 at 2:26:25 pm

Caveats, of course. It comes from a certified trainer who says he's in the middle of 2 back to back FCPX courses at the BBC.

I read it this morning, and just thought that I'd toss it in here. Though I'm not sure which part of the BBC it is he's talking about- news, drama, documentary.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: BBC too!
on Jun 26, 2014 at 8:38:33 pm

[Marcus Moore] "It comes from a certified trainer"

Even more suspicious!


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: BBC too!
on Jun 26, 2014 at 10:54:25 pm

I talked this year to a guy who was contracted to give talks and get feedback on new digital workflows at a bunch of different beeb broadcast centres - to my understanding the beeb is and has been road testing all the current systems exhaustively for ages now - there is some fcpx there - but avid is going nowhere in places like london or bristol and premiere is going to be the edit system of choice at worldwide - and is the edit system of choice for their upcoming main nature series - largely because it allows them to work with the material natively - that's no small beans in terms of the footage volumes they deal with in nature - I know fcpx can do that, but to my knowledge no one is seriously considering fcpx for any of those areas.

because the beeb deals with so many outside production companies and directors now - they are largely reacting to demands outside of their control in terms of getting director requests to shoot epic and prepare appropriate pipelines for programmes that the bbc mightn't think warrant shooting on epic - but they have to react to it.

that guy I talked to had zero awareness of X - i played it straight - and received no feedback or requests for it. That isn't to say that the beeb don't see a role for it. It definitely has some pretty well defined strengths and roles.

funnily enough craig slattery - who evangelises X heavily at the beeb was on the fifth floor at white city when I was in for a bit cutting promos for BBC worldwide showcase on the second floor a couple of months back. Some engineers there are aware of X, and reference craig putting it to work, but none of them seemed to be seriously considering it as a resource in a place that brings in freelancers. X has a real catch 22 problem there.
I thought about going up and saying hello to craig, er, but I somehow couldn't bring myself to - much mutual mud slinging had been had like....

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: BBC too!
on Jun 26, 2014 at 11:20:22 pm

In the interest if full disclosure I'll just quote the original message in its entirety. Veracity TBD.

Ollie Kenchington-
"I'm an Apple Certified Trainer for FCPX and am currently delivering back to back FCPX101 courses for the BBC. 20 of their staff editors are moving up to X from 7, with my guidance, and they LOVE it. Their lead editor told me that they edit (or re-edit) 30% of all the BBC's output."

If (being the operative word) the above is true it sounds like more than testing, but actual adoption.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: BBC too!
on Jun 27, 2014 at 12:27:42 am

hey - it could be true - i look forward to his posts on fcp.co in the near future.

whatever happened to http://www.10dot1.co.uk/ ?

they were big on fpc.co before the website started to periodically go down.

still - "20 of their staff editors are moving up to X from 7... Their lead editor told me that they edit (or re-edit) 30% of all the BBC's output."

so as I understand it, twenty editors, trained by him in the BBC, are editing or re-editing 30% of BBC output. okedoke. that all seems in order.

http://www.alchemea.com/industrytutors/ollie-kenchington

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: BBC too!
on Jun 27, 2014 at 1:11:19 am
Last Edited By Marcus Moore on Jun 27, 2014 at 1:11:57 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "so as I understand it, twenty editors, trained by him in the BBC, are editing or re-editing 30% of BBC output. okedoke. that all seems in order."

Yeah, I don't get that statement either. If true, they must be talking about a percentage of work for a specific group or division.

BBC just isn't centralized (or small) enough for that statement to be possible.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: BBC too!
on Jun 27, 2014 at 1:26:25 am

yeah - but craig slattery really has put it into effect - for the bit I was there the engineers at worldwide really actually did refer to him.
As long as they're not relying on freelancers - which is flat-out a problem for X - then they might decide to apply it like gangbusters internally with staff for all I know. As far as I can tell slattery was performing close to a time and motion study cutting down edit times for magazine shows.

X in terms of apprehension and tagging of footage is aces really.

otoh - i heard from someone at disney that they are going premiere - he said that they tendered to avid, adobe and apple coming off 7.

the situation they got into with apple sounded brief and funny - when they put out the tender apple came back with a ton of X boiler plate - when disney replied with specific concerns, particularly on group workflows, apple basically just re-sent the marketing materials for X. there was nobody home. and that's disney UK.

If the beeb do make use of X, you'd think they would do it with oven mitts given the software vendor they're dealing with.

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: BBC too!
on Jun 27, 2014 at 1:39:21 am
Last Edited By Marcus Moore on Jun 27, 2014 at 1:40:21 am

That just doesn't jive with what I've heard about the X team spending lots of time (not publicly, mind you) trying to get the software into more complex workflows where they see an opportunity.

That said, depending on what Disney meant by "collaborative", X may just not be ready for their needs in whatever timeframe Disney UK needed.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: BBC too!
on Jun 27, 2014 at 1:42:28 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "otoh - i heard from someone at disney that they are going premiere - he said that they tendered to avid, adobe and apple coming off 7."

Disney has decided on Adobe across the board - Disney, ABC, etc. However this applies to new set-ups, not tossing out one for the other. So you'll still see a lot of Avid there for a long time. On the TV side, they were never a big FCP place. That tended to affect internal corporate, more than anything else.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: BBC too!
on Jun 27, 2014 at 1:56:53 am

[Oliver Peters] "That tended to affect internal corporate, more than anything else."

dunno Oliver. the current UK broadcast disney promo endboard template is a truly excellent motion file. simon ubsdell would be proud.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: BBC too!
on Jun 27, 2014 at 1:26:59 am

[Marcus Moore] "BBC just isn't centralized (or small) enough for that statement to be possible."

Like most networks, FCP X will probably appear in pockets here and there. Not as across-the-board decisions. A lot of broadcasters and networks also have a large and separate web presence and cut separate content for that. That's also an area where X might crop up more and more.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: BBC too!
on Jun 27, 2014 at 6:31:21 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "so as I understand it, twenty editors, trained by him in the BBC, are editing or re-editing 30% of BBC output. okedoke. that all seems in order."

I got some followup info from the guy. Here it is verbatim-

Ollie Kenchington,
"Simon Catt, head of BBC's re-versioning unit in London. He looked in to Premiere but stuck his neck out and moved his whole dept. to FCPX. At the end of the course, he said he knew he'd made the right decision. As they re-edit a lot of other dept's output, they effectively finish 30% of total output."


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 3:06:24 pm

It's always been a great fit for news to me.

Ground we have covered in past post.

I talked one station into switching to X and another has also with a third looking at it.

All these stations have their own web presence these days. Go right from the timeline to it with a click and the quality looks great.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 6:06:19 pm

The part that I think is more fundamentally important is the integration with graphics and a centralized design staff. Unlike AE and PPro or any other NLE, a staff of station group designers at one location can create specific station graphics as Motion templates that are easy for the editors to adapt. They simply use the templates inside their NLE, with restricted published parameters.

News and promo editors typically don't dive into AE projects very much. They usually just work with "flattened" graphics and animations - or they pass off a base to the graphics department for finishing. With Motion templates, FCP X allows a whole new approach. Most of us have been exposed to that as plug-ins, but I suspect that's not at all what Apple had in mind originally. Motion VFX seems to be the first company really utilizing the template structure this way. That's what also stands out to me about the article.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 9:34:31 pm
Last Edited By Andy Field on Jun 26, 2014 at 9:40:55 pm

Having worked in news for decades, it's a safe bet they chose FCP X for a number or reasons.

1 - quick and easy to learn for non-editors
2 - no yearly licensing and server maintenance fees
3 - straightforward nature of news - cut/cut and simple dissolves
4 - buy once - set for a while

and there is little or no time to log or add meta data tags in run and gun news. it's dump the material on the drive, edit - upload or feed - on to the next event

in fact FCP X is overkill for most daily news operations - all the available effects will be lost on run and gun editors....

when NLE's first appeared in news rooms, you saw the "Dissolve" happy pieces hit the air - wide to tight shot...lets dissolve! Why not, we can do it now...

FCP X or any straightforward editor is perfect for quick turn around news....and so is any other NLE for editors who take time to learn them.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 11:43:20 pm

[Andy Field] "FCP X or any straightforward editor is perfect for quick turn around news"



It is, but the ironic thing is, the two stations here in town that are using it are not doing run and gun news with it.

The producer/editors are using it for specials, like cooking shows and fix up my crap home type shows.

They are using it for productions that were shot multi camera in the field and loving it.

When I come into these stations I only work on specify shows and never the actual news so I don't know what they are doing for day to day news cutting. I will ask and report back.

I think that's what I see as one of the main thing X is fighting.

Because it's so user friendly and easy to learn it has the image that it can only do easy stuff.
That's not really the case.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 12:05:53 am

[tony west] "It is, but the ironic thing is, the two stations here in town that are using it are not doing run and gun news with it."

The issue is that at present, FCP X doesn't integrate with any of the standard asset management and news script applications that are used in many newsrooms. If you have a newsroom structured around Avid solutions (NewsCutter, Interplay, ISIS, iNews), then it's very hard to replace that with FCP X until all the other elements are available.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 12:38:01 am

[Oliver Peters] "The issue is that at present, FCP X doesn't integrate with any of the standard asset management and news script applications that are used in many newsrooms."

That might be true, but that didn't stop the stations here from using it. Nor did it stop the station that this article is about.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 1:05:53 am

[tony west] "that didn't stop the stations here from using it. Nor did it stop the station that this article is about."

Correct. They might not use those tools. Based on the article, this station was in an FCP "legacy" environment, so these issues never applied to them in the first place. Plus, there's this: "Crews typically edit in the field and send their work back to the station via FTP or through WXYZ microwave trucks." This is a situation where X is good at, but not necessarily the way most stations operate.

By comparison, I freelance occasionally as well as do training at a local station. They are transitioning from FCP to Premiere Pro in the commercial department and from NewsCutter to Premiere Pro in news promos. Hard news is still Avid NewsCutter. Some of the promos they do are integrally tied to the Avid workflow. As such, they'll probably still have to hang on to an Avid workstation in each promo edit bay, just to be able to do those promos.

It's not that some Adobe workflow doesn't exist, but rather doing that would mean a much larger infrastructure change.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 1:33:30 am

[Oliver Peters] " Hard news is still Avid NewsCutter."

Not in this market.

Two of them were coming from 7 and the NBC affiliate is Edius

That's why I didn't hesitate to convince them to leave 7

They are loving X


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 10:54:10 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The part that I think is more fundamentally important is the integration with graphics and a centralized design staff. Unlike AE and PPro or any other NLE, a staff of station group designers at one location can create specific station graphics as Motion templates that are easy for the editors to adapt. They simply use the templates inside their NLE, with restricted published parameters."

New in CC 2014, designers can create templates in Ae and publish the text layers, which are then editable in Premiere Pro:

https://helpx.adobe.com/after-effects/how-to/create-animated-text-titles.ht...

This covers the base case for editors using animated templates.

For more advanced designers, I've developed an Ae technique using invisible text layers and expressions which allows the editor to hijack text entry fields for more generalized rigging.

http://www.keenlive.com/renderbreak/2014/06/rigging-ae-comps-with-the-new-t...

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 11:05:44 pm

[Walter Soyka] "This covers the base case for editors using animated templates.
For more advanced designers, I've developed an Ae technique using invisible text layers and expressions which allows the editor to hijack text entry fields for more generalized rigging."


Quite right. I believe this was done in response to what Apple did with Motion templates. Just as expressions was originally a response to Apple's behaviors in Motion.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 11:27:44 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Just as expressions was originally a response to Apple's behaviors in Motion."

AE had expressions years before Motion was released... v4.1 or 5.0 if I'm not mistaken.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 11:55:16 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Quite right. I believe this was done in response to what Apple did with Motion templates."

Well, I know that I sent my feature request in about a minute and half after I tried FCPX/M5 rigging...

Credit where it is due, the FCPX/M5 rigging integration is very elegantly done. It's a great model.


[Oliver Peters] "Just as expressions was originally a response to Apple's behaviors in Motion."

[Shawn Miller] "AE had expressions years before Motion was released... v4.1 or 5.0 if I'm not mistaken."

Yes, expressions in Ae predate Motion itself by 3 years. And expressions were by no means unique to Ae: pretty much every worthwhile animation package has them.

I think that behaviors were a response to expressions: in typical Apple style, they trade power for simplicity.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 2:50:49 am

[Walter Soyka] "in typical Apple style, they trade power for simplicity."

Wow.

I am printing this out for posterity.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 3:13:59 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Wow. I am printing this out for posterity."

Maybe power is not the right word; I don't mean to suggest that you can't do cool stuff with Apple solutions.

Is flexibility better?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 3:23:29 am

No, I think you're right, just glad to hear you say it! :P

Apple cares about power in very different ways, and a lot of it does stem from efficiencies.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 3:40:40 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "No, I think you're right, just glad to hear you say it! :P"

Yes, you have won! I conceded [link] a year ago.

(But I still don't think it always was this way...)

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 5:09:21 pm

Just joshing around with you, Walter.

All in good fun!


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 6:58:13 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "All in good fun!"

And absolutely taken as such!

But I do really think that maybe "power" wasn't quite the right word. I'd say that both FCPX/M5 and Pr/Ae are powerful, but not in the same ways. There's a certain je ne sais quoi in Apple's "think different" trade-off for simplicity (which was evident in neither Macromedia's Key Grip nor the old traditional workstation Mac Pro).

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 7:13:09 pm

[Walter Soyka] "There's a certain je ne sais quoi in Apple's "think different" trade-off for simplicity (which was evident in neither Macromedia's Key Grip nor the old traditional workstation Mac Pro)."

You'll be eating your words when you see the new 5.1.1 Motion update, Mr Soyka, just see if you don't.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 1:37:54 pm

"Yes, expressions in Ae predate Motion itself by 3 years. And expressions were by no means unique to Ae: pretty much every worthwhile animation package has them."

You guys are right about expressions. But there was something Adobe introduced in response to Motion. Maybe more animation presets or something. This was at the same time the puppet tool was introduced. I recall there were additional animation and random variations you could invoke. I believe you had to access these through Bridge. Anyone recall this? At the time I got the distinct impressions that the AE engineers were saying, "Oh, if that's what you want, we can do that,too!"

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 1:39:58 pm

Text animation presets and Brainstorm?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 1:48:07 pm

Yes, that sounds familiar.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 1:40:59 pm
Last Edited By Marcus Moore on Jun 27, 2014 at 1:43:25 pm

There aren't too many things Motion users can hold above their AE counterparts, but I know that AE was (I hope not still is) requiring workaround for reflections while Motion has had them since version 4.

And if I think back maybe Motion's build-in particle generator was ahead for a while. But anyone who's serious about that stuff is using Particular anyway.

I very much hope that the FXPlug3 support in Motion encourages developers to bring some of the more popular 3rd party plugins to Motion.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 5:07:00 pm
Last Edited By Shawn Miller on Jun 27, 2014 at 5:12:50 pm

[Marcus Moore] "And if I think back maybe Motion's build-in particle generator was ahead for a while. But anyone who's serious about that stuff is using Particular anyway."

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Motion's particle engine is very similar to Wonder Touch's ParticleIllusion... which also predates Motion... in fact, WT was able to convert part of their emitter library to Motion emitters, because the engines were so similar.

EDIT: I think the cool kids are using Particular alongside X-Particles + (3D software package of choice) for serious particle effects these days. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 4:52:23 pm

[Oliver Peters] ""Yes, expressions in Ae predate Motion itself by 3 years. And expressions were by no means unique to Ae: pretty much every worthwhile animation package has them."

You guys are right about expressions. But there was something Adobe introduced in response to Motion. Maybe more animation presets or something. This was at the same time the puppet tool was introduced. I recall there were additional animation and random variations you could invoke. I believe you had to access these through Bridge. Anyone recall this? At the time I got the distinct impressions that the AE engineers were saying, "Oh, if that's what you want, we can do that,too!""


Huh, can't think what feature that may have been. But I would be curious to know. Maybe this helps jog the memory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_After_Effects

Shawn



Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 11:28:45 pm
Last Edited By Shawn Miller on Jun 26, 2014 at 11:29:03 pm

[Walter Soyka] "For more advanced designers, I've developed an Ae technique using invisible text layers and expressions which allows the editor to hijack text entry fields for more generalized rigging.

http://www.keenlive.com/renderbreak/2014/06/rigging-ae-comps-with-the-new-t....."


Clever, I'm definitely stealing this. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 11:55:53 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Clever, I'm definitely stealing this. :-)"

Please do! My little demo there only scratches the surface of what you could do.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 26, 2014 at 11:38:30 pm

WOW!

CS6 is a dinosaur.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 2:03:21 am
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on Jun 27, 2014 at 2:08:56 am

[Walter Soyka] "I've developed an Ae technique using invisible text layers and expressions which allows the editor to hijack text entry fields for more generalized rigging."

Walter,

Brilliant. Of Course. Thanks for this.

Franz.

Edit: Walter, I understood the principal immediately, but could you give a quick example of how to convert text field to value for expressions.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 12:27:08 pm

[Walter Soyka] "For more advanced designers, I've developed an Ae technique using invisible text layers and expressions which allows the editor to hijack text entry fields for more generalized rigging."

Brilliant. I love it.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X or not?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 5:59:32 pm

And now from the Apple "in action" page.

http://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/in-action/scripps/

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

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