FORUMS: list search recent posts

weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Aindreas Gallagher
weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 21, 2014 at 9:01:05 pm

http://www.thepoweredit.com/weird-shoes-fcpx-and-the-sheep-barn/

kind of an SEO pitch to sell an e-book but:

in a world where everybody’s seeking to be meaningful in some way, wearing toe shoes is an easy, low-stakes way of saying, “I am a non-conformist, I am unique, I’m not like everybody else, dammit.”

Kind of like becoming a Final Cut Pro X evangelist.


and then he tries to sell a book.

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 21, 2014 at 9:40:29 pm

I would say those shoes are about as attractive as the Premiere interface! ;-)

**kidding!!**

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 21, 2014 at 10:15:15 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "I would say those shoes are about as attractive as the Premiere interface! ;-)"

she is the bit brutish - although off today - if you want to monkey with audio unit edit timings on a timeline - pressing the tilde key hovering over the timeline in premiere CC is very nearly a holy experience. instantly exploding the timeline panel to fullscreen and back just off the tilde is, I kid you not, surreally useful.

that said the audio plugins in X make premiere look effectively brain damaged, as does the power masks assembly. horsey courses.

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


Return to posts index


Simon Ubsdell
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20:42 pm

I know you're quite liking Premiere but tell us honestly what do you reckon to that tilde key shortcut?

Have you tried it yet?

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 21, 2014 at 10:52:34 pm
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Jul 21, 2014 at 11:15:01 pm

come on. I'm literally just after using the tilde feature my first time in anger [edit: in ppro like] - and mind you near timescale terrified at that trying to cut down a second choice track for sports promo thing for a CD review in a short day.
Try it simon. you know the tilde thing from AE timelines anyway.
It. is. a highly effective way to instantly isolate audio edit decisions. isolating interface elements is a very good trick.

I won't rent but its impossible not to like what you're using if you like it. that software has game. I also just did the whole drill into and inspect previous edits to pull bins with sync quotes thing. the media browser works like gangbusters. that said- 7 had everything on tabs but I've lost count on the downside of master clips.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 22, 2014 at 10:16:26 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Try it simon. you know the tilde thing from AE timelines anyway."

Sorry, just messing with you. It's just that you've mentioned the breathtaking excitement of using the tilde key about a hundred times so far ;-) Not that it isn't great - I really like it in this context (as of course in Ae too).

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 22, 2014 at 2:26:31 pm

you've hurt my feelings Simon, and worse, you've hurt tilde's feelings.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 22, 2014 at 2:38:11 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "you've hurt my feelings Simon, and worse, you've hurt tilde's feelings."

Think about how the poor grave accent feels. Grave accent does all the work, and tilde gets all the credit!

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: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 22, 2014 at 7:10:02 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Think about how the poor grave accent feels. Grave accent does all the work, and tilde gets all the credit!"

You definitely get a better class of joke around here.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 22, 2014 at 9:19:15 pm

who's on second base sure. so pure out of the blue here:

random and a pop question - if you have, say when did you last take an avid job/or work it simon? this be a curiosity thing.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 22, 2014 at 2:41:19 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "I would say those shoes are about as attractive as the Premiere interface! ;-)"

Scott, I know this was said in good fun.

That said, I've seen a few remarks in this forum about how unattractive the Pr interface is. I kind of like it, but I'm a long-time Ae guy, so I am biased.

So what is it about the Pr interface that fails to inspire affection?

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: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 22, 2014 at 10:32:09 pm

[Walter Soyka] "So what is it about the Pr interface that fails to inspire affection?"

I'll bite. This is more Ae based than Pr based.

Mind you, I am in the middle of a two week green screen composite, probably the biggest I have ever attempted, not in terms of shot number, but in terms of complexity. It's going OK, I'm not a great compositor which is probably the crux of my issues, but Ae CC 2014 is doing an excellently great job. Adobe sure has some talented folks over there.

Adobe apps, in general, are a really big click fest. I want the tools we use most, like levels, curves, some sort of real honest to goodness color correction even, to be easy to get to and understand. The workflow is scattered and jerky, fits of brilliance followed by just enough clicks to get your head out of the game, or just enough times where you have to rearrange the UI to get a scope, or filter interface to display correctly, or to trim a layer with four or five clicks, and then back to the pen layer by layer, keyframe by keyframe, effect to effect, pre comp to pre comp, track to track. Pr suffers a bit from this same DNA.

People shame FCPX's "uncustomizable" interface, and after spending day after day in Ae, Apple may just be on to something. With a keystroke, I can turn things on and off, reveal what I need, then close it up and when I get back to the main UI, it's just a timeline and a viewer. Some custom filter UIs float, so that you don't have to rearrange the main UI. You use what you need to use, reveal what you need to work on, then use it, or work on it, close it with a keystroke, and go back to basic editing.

Jeremy


Return to posts index


John Davidson
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 22, 2014 at 10:40:21 pm

If you have Creative Cloud, log in as a guest user on your mac. This popup never really goes away. It'll drive you crazy and any guest (like grandma) that might use it will be thoroughly confused and worried they're screwing something up.



John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 22, 2014 at 10:59:20 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "People shame FCPX's "uncustomizable" interface, and after spending day after day in Ae, Apple may just be on to something. With a keystroke, I can turn things on and off, "1

no, they aren't on to something. And you kind of can't.

you can call the below complexity, but it looks a lot like building a house in anger.

http://library.creativecow.net/articles/sevush_herb/Multicam-Premiere-Pro/a...

that said - enjoy X bud. You can't make it what it isn't. It is a limited use case editing system.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 22, 2014 at 11:15:41 pm

I guess I'm confused. The only thing that can't be done from that screenshot in X is a mixer, and track based tc layers (although the multicam window does have "burnt in" clip name and tc on it just like Pr). The mixer is a big "only thing" but I'm not sure what your point is?

X can't do multicam?

Are you saying I can't have organization on the left and timeline and program on the right?

An audio meter?

Also, I can't find a link to the TV Show Silicon Valley where the 'eccentric' CEO of giant tech company wears the "weird shoes" with a suit, but it's out there, and it's funny.


Return to posts index


Andy Neil
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 22, 2014 at 11:33:33 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm not sure what your point is?"

I think that FCPX's force configured windows tend to rustle Aindreas's jimmies. That's fine. I hate, hate, HATE Premiere's icons and buttons, probably with the same fervor. And the eye-strain inducing UI clutter. And round knobs on mouse-based software to emulate a physical control panel that I don't have.

But the tilde key IS pretty cool.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 4:17:38 pm

[Andy Neil] "tend to rustle Aindreas's jimmies"

indeed they do. best phrase on the internet that.

http://x4.fjcdn.com/comments/3468386+_f78f7d1902cfc6dc3173135e184ab019.png

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 6:21:48 pm

well ok yes, but that's still a rather cool screengrab.

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


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 9:18:15 pm
Last Edited By Bret Williams on Jul 24, 2014 at 9:26:50 pm

I wanna play! I didn't even go the multi cam eye candy route. So often people just see X in it's cheesy iMovie kinda default config so here's a screen shot with all kinds of stuff opened up just for fun. Adobe's workspaces are great, but even in FCP legacy I rarely used the workspaces. I set it up for the way I liked and left it. Which was 90% the way X is setup by default anyway. I leave After Effects set one way as well, but I do love me some tilde key!

So we're all agreed that X would be just as good as Premiere if it had workspaces and utilized the tilde key?



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 25, 2014 at 6:12:17 pm

ok i've got to give it you - X looks pretty rambo there.

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 10:14:30 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "It is a limited use case editing system."

This is just hilarious. Have fun on Premiere!

I have yet to hit that limitation yet on X.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 1:00:18 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Adobe apps, in general, are a really big click fest. I want the tools we use most, like levels, curves, some sort of real honest to goodness color correction even, to be easy to get to and understand. The workflow is scattered and jerky, fits of brilliance followed by just enough clicks to get your head out of the game, or just enough times where you have to rearrange the UI to get a scope, or filter interface to display correctly, or to trim a layer with four or five clicks, and then back to the pen layer by layer, keyframe by keyframe, effect to effect, pre comp to pre comp, track to track. Pr suffers a bit from this same DNA."

I think this is a fair criticism. I've submitted quite a few UI-related FRs lately against After Effects, and I'm sure I'll be submitting a few more. That said, there are also a TON of (hard-to-customize) Ae hotkeys that can make some of this a lot easier.

I'd be very interested to hear more about your flow-of-work interruptions -- maybe I can help.


[Jeremy Garchow] "People shame FCPX's "uncustomizable" interface, and after spending day after day in Ae, Apple may just be on to something. With a keystroke, I can turn things on and off, reveal what I need, then close it up and when I get back to the main UI, it's just a timeline and a viewer. Some custom filter UIs float, so that you don't have to rearrange the main UI. You use what you need to use, reveal what you need to work on, then use it, or work on it, close it with a keystroke, and go back to basic editing."

You can do pretty much all of this with Ae, too. Most people -- myself included, for years -- have been thinking inside the grid Ae presents to you in the standard layout at startup.

But it doesn't have to be that way. Lately I've been experimenting a lot with less rigid layouts in Ae. You can undock panels, and there are quite a few panels/windows that you can open and close with a keystroke.

For example, I've been working with brushes and text-related panels undocked (both of these can be automatically opened by selecting a brush or text tool), and closed with a hotkey. I've also been experimenting with keyboard-driven opening and closing of the project panel and effects & presets panels (in both docked and undocked configurations), and even the ECP, instead of leaving them open all the time, sucking up screen space.

You can also define any number of workspaces you like, accessible with two pen clicks, or you can define three workspaces accessible via keyboard shortcut.

Rejecting that assumption, encouraged by the default layout -- that all my main panels need to be docked and open all the time, and that I should be rearranging their sizing with the mouse -- has been a revelation, especially on portable/small screen systems.

Ae can certainly be improved, though it will probably always be clicky since there are just so many controls. But maybe a lot of the functionality you're seeking now might already be there?

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: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 4:13:01 am

[Walter Soyka] "I'd be very interested to hear more about your flow-of-work interruptions -- maybe I can help."

Some of this I am sure, we (specifically you and I), have talked about before, and if I'm wrong, I know it's been discussed elsewhere.

With this current project, it's basically green screen, mattes, and color correction, and all of the crap that goes with it.

In that process I track, roto, key, paint, color correct, position, opaquify, make some fake cast shadows with fake 3D lights and really convoluted fake floor transfer modes and 3D-ish things, and then try and marry all of that together to fool the audience that these disparate shots are really one thing. It's not easy to begin with as the green screen footage was shot by our team, backgrounds were not shot by our team, and those teams didn't have what we shot in mind when they were shooting their footage, because they were shooting stock footage. I obfuscated that on purpose. Bascially, I am taking our green screen and marrying it to different stock shots. Even though the green screen was shot on the same stage, with the same lights, on the same day, with the same camera, every single green screen key presents it's own little challenge.

But, what I like about FCPX is a lot of those basic controls, transfer modes, color correct, shades of grey correction as well as any effects I add from the effect browser, are all in the same place (inspector), and a lot of the really basic controls are on every single clip in the program. After Effects has a lot of these controls on each layer in the timeline and each layer is in a different place, , and you have to select those layers with a click, and then the effects are in their own panel, and you have to search for effects and apply it, every time, and then bounce back to the timeline and adjust those parameters, and then bounce two timeline layers deep into a pre comp, hit that effect window, hit those timeline parameters, have to toggle switches and modes to luma matte, and then back out to the main comp. Look, I know it's all complicated stuff, and you are exactly right that it will be clicky as their are so many controls, but I still feel like it could be just a bit more streamlined. A perfect example, in the first Ae CC Cloud only version you could tell Ae to automatically trim a newly created pre comp to the selected layer length. I wish we could do that with lights, solids, adjustment, basically anything that creates a new layer.

It would be awesome if working in pre comps could simply be easier. Being able to step in to pre comps without leaving the overall timeline, or not having to lock the comp viewer, or start a new one, would help me out a lot. I know Adobe is aware of this kind of thing.

I'd like to make a screen capture for FCPX where I start with a timeline with a multi clip and a viewer, I open the angle viewer for the timeline, I open the angle viewer for the browser (or source), I open the effect controls, then the color corrector, make adjustments, then I close them all up one by one to get back to where I started without having to touch the mouse once to get any of those open, only to adjust parameters. I have to find the time to do it.

I'm definitely not saying that Ae/Pr can be this way, or even needs to be this way, but there is a lot more to the X interface than "FCPX doesn't have a customizable UI, so phooey." It actually is customizable, and the parameter adjustments are usually in the same place, no matter what clip, layer, or browser you're working on. There is something very simple and right about that.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 4:55:06 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "But, what I like about FCPX is a lot of those basic controls, transfer modes, color correct, shades of grey correction as well as any effects I add from the effect browser, are all in the same place (inspector), and a lot of the really basic controls are on every single clip in the program. After Effects has a lot of these controls on each layer in the timeline and each layer is in a different place, , and you have to select those layers with a click, and then the effects are in their own panel, and you have to search for effects and apply it, every time, and then bounce back to the timeline and adjust those parameters,"

I don't really understand how this is so different in Ae versus FCP X. Aren't you still fundamentally selecting something in one place and making a change in another?

I go back and forth myself on whether I think an inspector in Ae is a good idea. I really like that an inspector gathers things together in one place -- great for muscle memory -- but I also really like that the Ae timeline lets me isolate specific (and possibly different) properties of multiple items and adjust them in context.

For example, with an inspector, if I want to tweak a couple properties on multiple layers, I have to click to select the layer, then move over into the inspector and make my change, then move back to select another layer, then back to the inspector to make a change...

In Ae, I just reveal the properties I want to change for multiple layers and I can hot-scrub them right from the timeline, without the select/tweak inspector dance.

I'm also not sure that I'd want a single global inspector. Instead, maybe I want multiple filterable inspectors, so I can keep all of one kind of property in one physical place on the screen (i.e., a transform inspector, a Colorista inspector, etc.).


[Jeremy Garchow] "It would be awesome if working in pre comps could simply be easier. Being able to step in to pre comps without leaving the overall timeline, or not having to lock the comp viewer, or start a new one, would help me out a lot. I know Adobe is aware of this kind of thing."

I know everybody else wants it, but I am not a fan of the uber-twirl idea. It sounds good on paper, and it'll be useful in some cases, but it'll break some other really good things in Ae. Think of uber-twirl like PIOPs, but this time, I'm on the other side of the argument.

There are two main cases for precomping: organizational (these items all logically belong in a single unit) and render-pipeline-required (because effects see other layers pre-effect, not post-effect).

In the first case, I think that rigging/publishing (an idea that has been floating around the Ae community for longer than FCPX/M5 has been around under different names) is the better solution. This lets a precomp be instanced in and controlled by the main comp. It's a lot more flexible and possibly less prone to user error where changing a nested precomp in one place messes it up horribly in another.

In the second case, I'd like to see the Ae render pipeline become a little more malleable, with the user having the option (via checkbox or maybe a little render flow diagram) whether an effect sees a layer pre- or post-effects processing.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm definitely not saying that Ae/Pr can be this way, or even needs to be this way, but there is a lot more to the X interface than "FCPX doesn't have a customizable UI, so phooey." It actually is customizable, and the parameter adjustments are usually in the same place, no matter what clip, layer, or browser you're working on. There is something very simple and right about that."

Smoke and Flame have fixed UIs which artists love.

A fixed UI gives you muscle memory. It's very fast, but at the expense of flexibility.

FCP X with its expanded intrinsic properties and fixed render pipeline (like the color corrector, which makes a ton of sense in an NLE but probably not so much in a compositor) reminds me a lot of the old Smoke SoftFX system (which Autodesk is now moving away from in favor of Batch everywhere).

I think that some of these ideas could be added to Ae and still be consistent with the overall design of the program, but I also think there's a lot of value in the current system which presents a pretty large amount of information in relatively little screen space.

Each system has strengths and weaknesses, and some way to use them in parallel would be fantastic.

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: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 6:56:30 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I don't really understand how this is so different in Ae versus FCP X. Aren't you still fundamentally selecting something in one place and making a change in another?"

In Ae, I have to adjust certain parameters in the timeline (opacity for example), and certain parameters in the effects window (levels, for example). There is some cross over, but I feel like I bounce between them a lot.

In FCPX, all those parameters are in the inspector. To me, it makes a big difference.

In Ae, if I need to adjust levels and composite mode, it's in two (or more) different places, in FCPX, it's in the same place on the screen.

[Walter Soyka] "I go back and forth myself on whether I think an inspector in Ae is a good idea. I really like that an inspector gathers things together in one place -- great for muscle memory -- but I also really like that the Ae timeline lets me isolate specific (and possibly different) properties of multiple items and adjust them in context."

Yes, it's a bit of a conundrum. I like what FCPX is doing, and I can get to color, compositing effects, audio, special fx, metadata, almost any parameter I need to do adjust on a clip in the inspector by hitting command-4 to open it, and command-4 to close it. I don't think Ae has this kind of functionality without a whole lot of setup and even then, I don't think it could ever be as streamlined as X in it's current state.


[Walter Soyka] "For example, with an inspector, if I want to tweak a couple properties on multiple layers, I have to click to select the layer, then move over into the inspector and make my change, then move back to select another layer, then back to the inspector to make a change..."

It depends on what you need to change, but you can change multiple clips parameters in FCPX globally. In Ae, you can reveal the parameters you want to tweak, then you have to select those parameters one by one, and then you can adjust. With X, I select a few layers, open the inspector and make the change.

Also, if you need to tweak each layer parameter separately, selecting clips in X with the C key makes things a lot less clicky, and more pointy. Pointy is much more fluid then clicky.

[Walter Soyka] "In the first case, I think that rigging/publishing (an idea that has been floating around the Ae community for longer than FCPX/M5 has been around under different names) is the better solution. This lets a precomp be instanced in and controlled by the main comp. It's a lot more flexible and possibly less prone to user error where changing a nested precomp in one place messes it up horribly in another.

In the second case, I'd like to see the Ae render pipeline become a little more malleable, with the user having the option (via checkbox or maybe a little render flow diagram) whether an effect sees a layer pre- or post-effects processing."


Sure. Whatever makes it easier to try and do what I am trying to do. :) I don't use pre comps as organization too much (remember, I am just on 'OK' compositor), but I have to use them for some mattes and composites, and then there's the hard-to-undersrtand notion of some things working on 3D layers, and some don't, and trying to keep all of that untied (or tie certain effects together via "3d" and others not). This is when precomping gets to be a real big PIA as I can't control (very easily) what gets effected and what doesn't. Maybe it's just a hard process that I can't grasp and I am whining too much.

It's hard for me to grasp what is happening when I make a pre comp a 3D layer because I want to light it or match a camera move, and then collapse the transformation (because I need to for quality purposes or whatever) and things go askew.


[Walter Soyka] "I think that some of these ideas could be added to Ae and still be consistent with the overall design of the program, but I also think there's a lot of value in the current system which presents a pretty large amount of information in relatively little screen space. "

And that's really all I could hope for. Ae shouldn't change too much, it's a stalwart, but the little things you do repetitively every day (like make a precomp to layer boundaries) make things go much faster, especially for the "ok" users like me.


Jeremy


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 7:06:16 pm

I would be really interested to what you're working on, Jeremy. Is it going to be public at some point?

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 7:09:01 pm
Last Edited By Jeremy Garchow on Jul 23, 2014 at 7:10:49 pm

[Shawn Miller] "I would be really interested to what you're working on, Jeremy. Is it going to be public at some point?"


Yes. I know it will be in certain stores for the public, I am unsure of a web presence at this point, but how can something not have a web presence these days? :)

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 7:27:27 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Shawn Miller] "I would be really interested to what you're working on, Jeremy. Is it going to be public at some point?"


Yes. I know it will be in certain stores for the public, I am unsure of a web presence at this point, but how can something not have a web presence these days? :)"


Very true, I hope you'll let us know if it hits The Interwebs. :-)

Just out of curiosity, is there a reason you're not using Mocha for roto and tracking?

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 7:37:10 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Just out of curiosity, is there a reason you're not using Mocha for roto and tracking?"

Honestly, every time I do a bigger composting job like this, I try to get to know Mocha and then subsequently get weirded out.

I have used Ae for so long in this capacity, that I know what to expect, and to Adobe's credit, their own proprietary tools get better and better

tl;dr...I'm lazy.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 7:51:22 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "every time I do a bigger composting job like this" (emphasis mine)

I know you're not happy with the Ae interface, but it's not THAT bad!

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: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 8:22:21 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I know you're not happy with the Ae interface, but it's not THAT bad!"

Yeah. I need to keep modifying my auto correct on that one.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 7:55:28 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Shawn Miller] "Just out of curiosity, is there a reason you're not using Mocha for roto and tracking?"

Honestly, every time I do a bigger composting job like this, I try to get to know Mocha and then subsequently get weirded out.

I have used Ae for so long in this capacity, that I know what to expect, and to Adobe's credit, their own proprietary tools get better and better

tl;dr...I'm lazy."


Ha ha, yeah, I have a suspicion that Mocha could make your life much easier... but totally understand if you just don't have a week or two to invest in learning it. Maybe Slice-X could be helpful here?

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 9:59:41 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Maybe Slice-X could be helpful here?"

Maybe, but then I don't have all the tools I do in Ae.

Part of what is so hard about this project is getting disparate perspectives to line up. I'm not going to lie, it's tough if not impossible. Some of these shots are simply going to look kind of "fake", which is OK and fits in to the theme, but it has to be a really really good kind of fake, and with Ae, I am able to use actual camera physics to get some of this stuff to (sort of) line up correctly.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 11:27:24 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Shawn Miller] "Maybe Slice-X could be helpful here?"

Maybe, but then I don't have all the tools I do in Ae.

Part of what is so hard about this project is getting disparate perspectives to line up. I'm not going to lie, it's tough if not impossible. Some of these shots are simply going to look kind of "fake", which is OK and fits in to the theme, but it has to be a really really good kind of fake, and with Ae, I am able to use actual camera physics to get some of this stuff to (sort of) line up correctly."


Ah, gotcha'. Sorry to hear that, sounds like you're the one that has to "make it work" - not always a fun position to be in. Do you do a lot of this kind of thing? If so, camera mapping might also save you a lot of work in trying to match perspectives. The folks providing the background plate wouldn't even need to worry that much about shooting the correct perspective, just the (somewhat) correct height of the camera when shooting a spherical panorama. I don't know if you're interested, but I would be happy to provide some details on how to go about this... for future reference, of course. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 1:48:52 pm

[Shawn Miller] "I don't know if you're interested, but I would be happy to provide some details on how to go about this... for future reference, of course. :-)"

That sounds fantastic. Thanks so much.

editstation at gmail, if you want to do it that way.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 5:18:49 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Shawn Miller] "I don't know if you're interested, but I would be happy to provide some details on how to go about this... for future reference, of course. :-)"

That sounds fantastic. Thanks so much.

editstation at gmail, if you want to do it that way."


Yes that works, I will PM you a bit later. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 7:38:33 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Just out of curiosity, is there a reason you're not using Mocha for roto and tracking?"

Or, for that matter, Motion?

I know you're a long-time Ae user, but maybe you'd find the inspectorful interface more to your liking?

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: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 7:43:18 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Or, for that matter, Motion?

I know you're a long-time Ae user, but maybe you'd find the inspectorful interface more to your liking?
"


Because it's easier to get a layered (stacked) edit in to Ae than it is to get the same timeline in to Motion.

:(


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 7:34:33 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "In Ae, if I need to adjust levels and composite mode, it's in two (or more) different places, in FCPX, it's in the same place on the screen."

Fair.

But the flip side of condensing all this stuff into the same place is that it's harder to have immediate access to more of it at the same time.

On blend modes, I actually quite like being able to look over the layer stack and see how a set of things are interacting. I wouldn't want to have to step into each layer to find that.

Again, ideally, we could have both.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Yes, it's a bit of a conundrum. I like what FCPX is doing, and I can get to color, compositing effects, audio, special fx, metadata, almost any parameter I need to do adjust on a clip in the inspector by hitting command-4 to open it, and command-4 to close it. I don't think Ae has this kind of functionality without a whole lot of setup and even then, I don't think it could ever be as streamlined as X in it's current state."

I think these are different by design -- some things that FCP X considers intrinsic properties are handled by effects in Ae.

FCP X, being an NLE, has a broader concept of what properties should be intrinsic, which is cool as long as you're ok with the restrictions it imposes. While I see why it'd be handy for you in this workflow, compositors and mograph artists would chafe.

Let's say you wanted color correction to be an intrinsic property of a layer in Ae. Which color correction effect should get hard-coded into the render pipeline?

This is why I mentioned generic filterable inspector panels (for which I have not yet filed a feature request -- gotta go write that next). It'd be cool to have a panel that would only show effects for the currently selected layer matching "Levels OR Exposure OR Colorista II". Would that help you in this situation?


[Jeremy Garchow] "It's hard for me to grasp what is happening when I make a pre comp a 3D layer because I want to light it or match a camera move, and then collapse the transformation (because I need to for quality purposes or whatever) and things go askew."

That's hard for everyone to grasp. I'm working on a script to make it easier.


[Jeremy Garchow] "And that's really all I could hope for. Ae shouldn't change too much, it's a stalwart, but the little things you do repetitively every day (like make a precomp to layer boundaries) make things go much faster, especially for the "ok" users like me."

A lot of this "do stuff faster" work is handled nicely by third party developers.

The best advice I can give you is to go on a shopping spree on Aescripts.com. Start with ft-toolbar which lets you easily create buttons for scripts, effects, etc. and go from there.

For example, Trim to Layer [link] will solve one of your earlier problems.

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: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 7:47:48 pm

I'm going to annoy you all here and just mention that a lot of this is much better handled by the Motion model where it's ridiculously easy to get to everything all of the time.

And I'll admit that Motion doesn't allow for quite the same degree of complexity as Ae, but quite clearly allows for vastly more complexity than FCP X.

And then having lit the blue touch paper, I shall retire promptly.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 8:05:48 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I'm going to annoy you all here and just mention that a lot of this is much better handled by the Motion model where it's ridiculously easy to get to everything all of the time."

Setting the stage for Composite-Off 2014?

You know, Simon, I just recently bought a license of Fusion (in part on your good word) and I'm having some fun in my spare time learning that. There are a few uniquely-done things there I'm enjoying.

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: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 8:41:22 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Let's say you wanted color correction to be an intrinsic property of a layer in Ae. Which color correction effect should get hard-coded into the render pipeline?"

That's the question Adobe has to ask themselves.

At it's very essence, compositing is mostly about controlling shades of grey. How about a Levels filter? Or Curves? Or a 3wayCC with luminance to get us started?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 2:31:20 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "At it's very essence, compositing is mostly about controlling shades of grey."

Insightful! I shall steal this.


[Jeremy Garchow] "How about a Levels filter? Or Curves? Or a 3wayCC with luminance to get us started?"

I think you are thinking like an editor. This makes a lot of sense when you're only applying one of each effect per clip, but it's less clear to me as a designer and compositor how it should be handled when you require multiple effects on the same clip.

Treating a pixel-altering effect as an intrinsic property of a layer locks you into a fixed render pipeline*. Does the levels/curves/3wayCC render before or after other effects? What if you want to apply it in between other effects on the layer?

Treating as many things as effects as possible give you some easy user-controlled variability in the pipeline; you control the render order by manipulating the stacking order of effects in their control panel.

Now I am not saying you are wrong or that this problem is insurmountable -- and I'd love to hear your further thoughts on it because I think your fundamental insight that you lack tools for dealing with common problems is good -- but I am saying that I think NLEs and compositors handle this problem differently on purpose.


* Unless you add another UI for custom per-layer render pipeline reordering to make up for taking the property out of the "effects" segment of the pipeline -- but then haven't you just basically reinvented the effects control panel?

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: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 2:48:32 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Treating a pixel-altering effect as an intrinsic property of a layer locks you into a fixed render pipeline*. Does the levels/curves/3wayCC render before or after other effects? What if you want to apply it in between other effects on the layer?

Treating as many things as effects as possible give you some easy user-controlled variability in the pipeline; you control the render order by manipulating the stacking order of effects in their control panel."


Absolutely. A lot of the challenges - and solutions - in compositing are about controlling the order of operations.

That and controlling shades of grey ;-)

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 4:10:40 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I think you are thinking like an editor. This makes a lot of sense when you're only applying one of each effect per clip, but it's less clear to me as a designer and compositor how it should be handled when you require multiple effects on the same clip."

Me? Like an editor? Why the hell would I do such a thing? And what of it? :)

In this particular job, and on almost every green screen job I do, and I imagine if you are getting mattes together for live action footage, at some point you are going to need a levels filter. For MoGraph? Probably not, but for live action compositing you will need to create a matte at some point.

[Walter Soyka] "Treating a pixel-altering effect as an intrinsic property of a layer locks you into a fixed render pipeline*. Does the levels/curves/3wayCC render before or after other effects? What if you want to apply it in between other effects on the layer?"

If a levels filter was on every clip, that doesn't mean I need to use it, it would also mean it would be on the layer that I DO need to use it on (thus controlling the render pipeline, as you say), or you add an adjustment layer, or whatever it is you need to do to get it in the right place. In Ae's layer based workflow, I don't see this is a problem, you can also precompose and disassociate one layer from another, just like we have to do in Ae today. Or, you can simply add another instance of the levels where you need it in the stacking order and get your adjustment out of it.

Let me ask, when you do live action composting, where do you do your color matching?

[Walter Soyka] "but I am saying that I think NLEs and compositors handle this problem differently on purpose."

Surely, but of course. In a layer based system, there are ways to get the render order just as you need, it happens in FCPX as well and it does not prevent me from getting the job done. Most of the time, having most of the parameters I need ay my fingertips is worth not being able to move the color board/luminance up and down the render order. There are so many ways to handle it, including making a semi-transparent matte and comping back the original for the fill.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 4:39:12 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "If a levels filter was on every clip, that doesn't mean I need to use it, it would also mean it would be on the layer that I DO need to use it on (thus controlling the render pipeline, as you say), or you add an adjustment layer, or whatever it is you need to do to get it in the right place. In Ae's layer based workflow, I don't see this is a problem, you can also precompose and disassociate one layer from another, just like we have to do in Ae today. Or, you can simply add another instance of the levels where you need it in the stacking order and get your adjustment out of it."

But if you have an intrinsic levels property which you ignore and use a levels effect in effect stack, then don't you have two different places on the same layer where you might look for levels controls? And if you do the work on an adjustment layer instead, now you have four places that the levels work could be done?


[Jeremy Garchow] "Let me ask, when you do live action composting, where do you do your color matching?"

I do all my composting in the back yard. (Gotcha again!)

I'd do this work in the compositor, but the effects/nodes/tools I'd use and the order I'd use them in could vary considerably depending on what needs to be done to sell the composite.

I also generally work in floating point and I'm not afraid to stack several effects if it makes the work easier to do, or easier to understand later if I have to revisit it.

I wonder if a lot of your frustration would be solved by going the other way, to a nodal compositor where the flow is more obvious, and the tool arrangement totally user-controlled. Unlike in Ae, the only intrinsic properties of a source node are related to its format (like what you'd find in Interpret Footage), and literally everything else must be applied by the operator.

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: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 5:30:03 pm

[Walter Soyka] "But if you have an intrinsic levels property which you ignore and use a levels effect in effect stack, then don't you have two different places on the same layer where you might look for levels controls? And if you do the work on an adjustment layer instead, now you have four places that the levels work could be done?"

Why not? What if that helped me? I could adjust levels on the layer stack where needed, and then the intrinsic levels filter could add a global adjustment without a precomp, without a separate adjustment layer, and I could have full control without adding much overhead or difficulty, and visits to clickfest.

[Walter Soyka] "I do all my composting in the back yard. (Gotcha again!)"

eh, dammit.

[Walter Soyka] "I'd do this work in the compositor, but the effects/nodes/tools I'd use and the order I'd use them in could vary considerably depending on what needs to be done to sell the composite."

Sure. Every shot is different. What works for one may not work for another. Are you happy with Ae's color tools?

[Walter Soyka] "I wonder if a lot of your frustration would be solved by going the other way, to a nodal compositor where the flow is more obvious, and the tool arrangement totally user-controlled. Unlike in Ae, the only intrinsic properties of a source node are related to its format (like what you'd find in Interpret Footage), and literally everything else must be applied by the operator."

Yeah, I can see the value of a nodal workflow, but I don't have one. :(


maybe i should just stick to composting


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 5:48:14 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Why not? What if that helped me? I could adjust levels on the layer stack where needed, and then the intrinsic levels filter could add a global adjustment without a precomp, without a separate adjustment layer, and I could have full control without adding much overhead or difficulty, and visits to clickfest."

Maybe I am not understanding what you mean here, then? Seems to me that having a separate, intrinsic levels somewhere would contribute to your (very valid) look-here-no-look-there issue.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Are you happy with Ae's color tools?"

Not always. The first-party tools are ok, but there is room for improvement.

The new-and-improved Curves effect [link] pales next to third-party Frischluft Fresh Curves [link].

Ae doesn't have a native first-party three-way color corrector. Adobe has bundled third-party Color Finesse since dinosaurs roamed the earth, but stepping into a separate interface is hard for even for the more click-tolerant among us to accept. Good thing there's Colorista II [link].

But Ae has nothing quite like NUKE's MatchGrade node:






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: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 6:03:18 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Maybe I am not understanding what you mean here, then? Seems to me that having a separate, intrinsic levels somewhere would contribute to your (very valid) look-here-no-look-there issue."

This started with an "inspector" type of solution for Ae. If levels were a part of inspector, they could also be a part of the effects window, if that's what we need. Or, as a user, you wouldn't have to use it that way.

[Walter Soyka] "Ae doesn't have a native first-party three-way color corrector. Adobe has bundled third-party Color Finesse since dinosaurs roamed the earth, but stepping into a separate interface is hard for even for the more click-tolerant among us to accept. "

Not only that, when you're working with transparency, the Color Finesse interface presents a few challenges. The "simple interface" works decently, though, but you do have to do a lot of panel adjusting for that one.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 5:05:41 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's hard for me to grasp what is happening when I make a pre comp a 3D layer because I want to light it or match a camera move, and then collapse the transformation (because I need to for quality purposes or whatever) and things go askew."

Can we talk about this a little more when you have the time? I've been working on a script keen_3dLayerTools [link] which aims to solve some common 3D layer manipulation challenges with a single click.

I think I can help you with your challenges here, but I'd like to understand better how your comps are set up, what it is that you're doing, what you're seeing, and what you want to see.

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: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 5:40:18 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Can we talk about this a little more when you have the time? I've been working on a script keen_3dLayerTools [link] which aims to solve some common 3D layer manipulation challenges with a single click."

Yes, absolutely.



[Walter Soyka] "I think I can help you with your challenges here, but I'd like to understand better how your comps are set up, what it is that you're doing, what you're seeing, and what you want to see."

The current example was trying to add cast shadows to a "floor" which is a multiplied solid layer that accepts shadows. An easy way to do this is to add a camera to adjust perspective of the floor. But my foreground subject also needed to be 3D because it needed a light, and so then that would get effected by a camera, so I would then try and precomp to make things separate but I'd lose some quality because at this point, everything is really weird. I hit the "collapse transformations" tab, and hit 3D, and things go askew. Turning off the 3D layer does not put things back to where they were, only an undo can put things back to where the were (is that a bug or a feature?). It's hard to explain, and I ended up ditching most of it and going another way without the shadows, which makes for a crappier compost....... :-D


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 6:10:37 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "The current example was trying to add cast shadows to a "floor" which is a multiplied solid layer that accepts shadows. An easy way to do this is to add a camera to adjust perspective of the floor. But my foreground subject also needed to be 3D because it needed a light, and so then that would get effected by a camera, so I would then try and precomp to make things separate but I'd lose some quality because at this point, everything is really weird. I hit the "collapse transformations" tab, and hit 3D, and things go askew. Turning off the 3D layer does not put things back to where they were, only an undo can put things back to where the were (is that a bug or a feature?). "

What camera effect were you trying to negate? (Collapse transformations probably doesn't do what you want it to in this case, by the way, as it basically pulls the 3D layers from inside the precomp into the main scene.)

If you still have the broken comp lying around somewhere and are able to share, I'd be happy to take a look at the reduced AEP (no footage needed) and see if I can figure out a way for my script to do what you are looking for.


[Jeremy Garchow] "It's hard to explain, and I ended up ditching most of it and going another way without the shadows, which makes for a crappier compost....... :-D"

Jeremy, the After Effects forum [link] has at least one handsome gentleman who would be happy to help, and in fact, several handsome gentlemen would surely assist. Friends don't let friends suffer crappy composts.

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: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 6:49:08 pm

[Walter Soyka] "What camera effect were you trying to negate? "

Adjusting the "floor" to be inline with the rest of the scene.

[Walter Soyka] "If you still have the broken comp lying around somewhere and are able to share, I'd be happy to take a look at the reduced AEP (no footage needed) and see if I can figure out a way for my script to do what you are looking for."

Thanks, I think I still have it, but I may need to recreate some of it.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 6:51:07 pm

Geez Walter and Jeremy. Get a room. :-)

I'm going to have to unsubscribe to this thread just to get any work done.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 7:09:28 pm

[Andy Neil] "I'm going to have to unsubscribe to this thread just to get any work done."


Apologies.

FCPX is a limited use case composting (sic of sic) system made of old cheese, and the whimsical dreams of unicorns.

If only it had a tilde blow out window.

Are we back on track now? :)


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 1:39:15 pm

[Walter Soyka] "You can undock panels, and there are quite a few panels/windows that you can open and close with a keystroke."

Walter,

I prefer the flexibility that Adobe allows in their approach to layout and panels (or panes) in workspaces. However, there are problems which demonstrate this functionality hasn't really been thought through.

If panes are separated into separate windows then there are some oddities. (All of this from experience in Premiere, and an older version.)

For one thing, it seems to keep one window as a "master window" of sorts. Closing other windows simply closes those panels or panes. If you happen to close the "Master Window" you end up quitting Premiere Pro - this is true, even if by some shuffling, all you have in the "master window" is the timecode display (for example). There is no indication of which window is the "master" at any given time.

But it's also impossible to bring windows and panes forward from underneath one another - so if you have some tools in one window, they might be forever relegated to be "behind" another window (and therefor unusable) as you can't shift the layering at all.

So undockable windows is a nice idea; it seems nobody has thought about all its implications.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 4:59:18 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "If panes are separated into separate windows then there are some oddities. (All of this from experience in Premiere, and an older version.)"

[Franz Bieberkopf] "For one thing, it seems to keep one window as a "master window" of sorts. Closing other windows simply closes those panels or panes. If you happen to close the "Master Window" you end up quitting Premiere Pro - this is true, even if by some shuffling, all you have in the "master window" is the timecode display (for example). There is no indication of which window is the "master" at any given time."

This isn't true now. You can close all the windows except for the main application frame without closing the app.


[Franz Bieberkopf] "But it's also impossible to bring windows and panes forward from underneath one another - so if you have some tools in one window, they might be forever relegated to be "behind" another window (and therefor unusable) as you can't shift the layering at all."

I'm not sure I understand. Floating windows always float over panes, but floating windows can overlap with the focused window coming to the top.


[Franz Bieberkopf] "So undockable windows is a nice idea; it seems nobody has thought about all its implications."

I know Adobe has done a good bit of UI work, and I'm not sure what version you were referring to above, but unless I misunderstand, I think it's been fixed.

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

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 8:47:42 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I'm not sure what version you were referring to above, but unless I misunderstand, I think it's been fixed."

Walter,

I just checked on an install of CC 2014.

I think what may have changed is that the "master" window is now clearly labelled (with the project file path on a Mac) - thus even if all you have in that "master" window is the audio meters (for example), it's still clear that it's the "master".

A better implementation would be to have the "Project" pane always take on the "master" roll - but now that I think of it, why do we even need a "master" window?

Also, while any given floating window now comes to the fore if you select it, this is not true for the "master" window - it remains in the back, forever obscured and never to be brought into view (unless you close or move windows). Again, this can be confusing if you've left something in it that you want brought forward (especially if you've forgotten that it's the arbitrary "master window" and acts differently than all other windows).

Franz.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 2:47:10 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I think what may have changed is that the "master" window is now clearly labelled (with the project file path on a Mac) - thus even if all you have in that "master" window is the audio meters (for example), it's still clear that it's the "master"."

I think I understand now. This seems to be a bit of cross-platform UI oddness. A master window seems unnatural on a Mac, but is required for an application on Windows.


[Franz Bieberkopf] "Also, while any given floating window now comes to the fore if you select it, this is not true for the "master" window - it remains in the back, forever obscured and never to be brought into view (unless you close or move windows). Again, this can be confusing if you've left something in it that you want brought forward (especially if you've forgotten that it's the arbitrary "master window" and acts differently than all other windows)."

This is a pretty standard convention, though, isn't it? Apple apps like TextEdit, Pages and Keynote have floating windows that can never be layered behind the main document (and that vanish when their application isn't in the foreground).

I think the behavior is desirable, too. If you were to select the main window and it popped to the fore, then it could completely cover the floating panels, making them invisible and inaccessible via mouse. Wouldn't losing the window entirely like that be more confusing than seeing that the floating window is obscuring some part of the main window and having to move it out of the way to access what's underneath?

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

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 3:02:53 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on Jul 24, 2014 at 3:03:18 pm

Walter,

[Walter Soyka] "If you were to select the main window and it popped to the fore, then it could completely cover the floating panels, making them invisible and inaccessible via mouse. Wouldn't losing the window entirely like that be more confusing than seeing that the floating window is obscuring some part of the main window and having to move it out of the way to access what's underneath?"

Ideally, you can cascade windows if you so desire - thus choosing them as needed. Additionally, some software has keyboard shortcuts to bring windows forward, including the ability to cycle focus - also desirable. There is no rationale in Premiere for why one window must remain "in the back" - this is most evident if the panes that it holds, for example, have been reduced to something trivial - like the audio meters (why must they be "in the back" all the time?) - and then arbitrary switched out (now, suddenly they can change layer priority).

[Walter Soyka] "Apple apps like TextEdit, Pages and Keynote have floating windows that can never be layered behind the main document"

I don't know the other software, but TextEdit is not like this (not on mountain lion and earlier, anyway). Or I don't know what you're talking about.

[Walter Soyka] "This seems to be a bit of cross-platform UI oddness. A master window seems unnatural on a Mac, but is required for an application on Windows."

I think that's part of it - but it also seems to be suite-related (part of the way other software in the suite works). In Photoshop, for example, the "master window" has UI elements that clearly mark it as something other than just another window - there's a functional difference being reflected visually. But even there - Photoshop doesn't quit if I close the "main" window. In Premiere, this simply isn't true, and if it should be true, such "special status" should be tied to the project pane, for example.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 3:08:18 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I don't know the other software, but TextEdit is not like this (not on mountain lion and earlier, anyway). Or I don't know what you're talking about."

Sure it is. Open up Text Edit, hit Cmd+T to open the fonts panel, and try to put that floating window behind the document window.


[Franz Bieberkopf] "In Premiere, this simply isn't true, and if it should be true, such "special status" should be tied to the project pane, for example."

Premiere is a bit different than Photoshop in that Pr can only open a single document and PS can open multiple documents -- but nonetheless I'd agree that the behavior you describe is strange and unexpected.

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

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 24, 2014 at 3:26:24 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Open up Text Edit, hit Cmd+T to open the fonts panel, and try to put that floating window behind the document window."

Walter,

Ah, got it.

I guess I think of the fonts panel as part of a clear hierarchy (Documents vs. Tools). It sort of explains itself, and it's reinforced by behaviour (like Fonts hiding if TextEdit isn't active - it's a secondary kind of window).

There is no such explanation that means anything to a user in Premiere.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 5:10:53 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Adobe apps, in general, are a really big click fest. I want the tools we use most, like levels, curves, some sort of real honest to goodness color correction even, to be easy to get to and understand. "

Hi jeremy,

Hope the keying is going OK ;-)

I do wonder whether you're not underestimating how many tools you have a your disposal in Ae versus the relatively vastly smaller toolset in FCP X? Editing just needs far fewer tools than mograph or compositing.

I can testify from trying to write plug-ins for it that the Inspector in X is very hard to deal with. You very, very quickly run out of space and while there are a few space savings gizmos (twirl-downs and hidden menus) that you can deploy with some more advanced UI-building trickery, it still isn't easy to make something complex that doesn't feel cluttered and cumbersome.

And the fact that the space is horizontally fixed is a real issue for the naming of parameters and so on - you have to keep them short, which is sometimes quite unhelpful.

The exact same plug-in in Ae or Pr seems to luxuriate in huge amounts of space - and of course you can always very easily as the end-user make that space as large as you'd like.

And let's not forget that X has its own slightly tiresome sub-menu system just where you don't want one and that's in the Color Board. You absolutely should not have to tab between those separate spaces while grading - Color, Saturation and Exposure really should be accessible on a single panel. Of course you can get used to it but it's far from ideal and I'd suggest it's only the constrictive demands of the Inspector that mean this tabbed model was a necessary economy.

I do agree that once you're used to the space, X "feels" pretty good and quick to get around - but it's a long way from being an ideal model. On balance, I do prefer the (historical) mess of Ae where you can at least customise it to the way you like working even if imperfectly.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 7:07:05 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Hope the keying is going OK ;-)"

The keying is going great! The compositing?...mehhh.

[Simon Ubsdell] "I do wonder whether you're not underestimating how many tools you have a your disposal in Ae versus the relatively vastly smaller toolset in FCP X? Editing just needs far fewer tools than mograph or compositing."

Completely. I do get it, honestly.

Let's put FCPX away for a second (Aindreas will be happy about that) and ask ourselves can the Ae/Pr interface be more efficient? I think we could all agree on "yes". While the panels let you customize to your hearts content, how much of that customization is wasted space?

[Simon Ubsdell] "I do agree that once you're used to the space, X "feels" pretty good and quick to get around - but it's a long way from being an ideal model. On balance, I do prefer the (historical) mess of Ae where you can at least customise it to the way you like working even if imperfectly."

I'm not sure if there is an ideal model, but allowing keyboard controls to everything is a pretty good model.

Bring FCPX back out again (sorry Aindreas), and using the color board as an example, I can open the color board (command-6), choose exposure (command-control-e), page up and down to the pucks, and use arrows to adjust the pucks. I then go to color (command-control-c), bounce to the puck I want, and go. Command-4 zips all that back up. All of this is without selecting anything, or constructing a new panel diagram to bounce between.

X's method is far form perfect, but there is an efficiency to it that I appreciate, and the keyboard customization interface, in my personal opinion, is pretty sublime.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 7:59:47 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Let's put FCPX away for a second (Aindreas will be happy about that) and ask ourselves can the Ae/Pr interface be more efficient? I think we could all agree on "yes". While the panels let you customize to your hearts content, how much of that customization is wasted space?"

I couldn't agree more - everything about the Ae UI screams to me of legacy architecture that could so obviously be done differently. No-one in their right minds would build the UI that way if they were starting today. But it kind of works and does present a lot, and I do mean a lot, of really dense functionality reasonably effectively.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Bring FCPX back out again (sorry Aindreas), and using the color board as an example, I can open the color board (command-6), choose exposure (command-control-e), page up and down to the pucks, and use arrows to adjust the pucks. I then go to color (command-control-c), bounce to the puck I want, and go. Command-4 zips all that back up. All of this is without selecting anything, or constructing a new panel diagram to bounce between."

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. To me, to notion of tabbing to a different panel to adjust the saturation because I've just tweaked the gamma really goes against the grain and it's something you just don't have to put up with in any other grading environment. Grading is surely all about the interaction between the different controls, and not a process where you first adjust one thing then go off and adjust another. At least, most colorists will tell you that - which is one of the main reasons for using a physical interface that allows you to simultaneously makes adjustments to two different parameters, rather than have to do it serially.

Grading with a mouse is bad enough, but adding to the serial nature of the process by having to tab around as the Color Board requires you to do really seems to me to be pushing things in the wrong direction.

I'm not saying that it doesn't work, but from a UI point of view there is surely no question that it is sub-optimal.

[Jeremy Garchow] "X's method is far form perfect, but there is an efficiency to it that I appreciate, and the keyboard customization interface, in my personal opinion, is pretty sublime."

Sublime is quite a claim ;-) There are still a few things that I'd like to have shortcuts for that don't seem to be there, or maybe I haven't worked the shortcuts hard enough?

I think overall that Apple have, as is their wont, put a good deal of good thought into the UI design of X, but I just think there are limitations, which as far as they are concerned fall into the category of "good enough" that they currently seem a little too prone to embracing.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 8:09:38 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I couldn't agree more - everything about the Ae UI screams to me of legacy architecture that could so obviously be done differently. No-one in their right minds would build the UI that way if they were starting today. But it kind of works and does present a lot, and I do mean a lot, of really dense functionality reasonably effectively."

If we were re-building the Ae UI from scratch, what fundamental design assumptions would we change?

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: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 8:24:37 pm
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on Jul 23, 2014 at 8:27:40 pm

[Walter Soyka] "If we were re-building the Ae UI from scratch, what fundamental design assumptions would we change?"

Wow! I think if we were to go there, we would need to get paid for our input ;-)

In my limited experience of it, UI design is one of the hardest things to get right, while at the same time being the easiest thing in the world to pick holes in!

It's incredible how much time you can expend simply on the design of a single legend ... so, overall, it's a massive undertaking to think about designing a UI for something as hugely complex as Ae.

But just on the broadest level, Ae layers and precomps are really Ui-inefficient in my view ...

Retires to a safe distance once more.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 8:36:48 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Wow! I think if we were to go there, we would need to get paid for our input ;-)"

I wouldn't be opposed, but as I see myself working with Ae for the foreseeable future, I'd also be happy just to see the app become better to use.


[Simon Ubsdell] "In my limited experience of it, UI design is one of the hardest things to get right, while at the same time being the easiest thing in the world to pick holes in! It's incredible how much time you can expend simply on the design of a single legend ... so, overall, it's a massive undertaking to think about designing a UI for something as hugely complex as Ae."

No doubt. I was just curious if there were a couple quick-hit items you had in mind when you said that no one in their right mind would build the UI that way today.


[Simon Ubsdell] "But just on the broadest level, Ae layers and precomps are really Ui-inefficient in my view ..."

What do you mean by inefficient?

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: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 8:43:44 pm

[Walter Soyka] "What do you mean by inefficient?"

Inefficient is probably not quite the right word though I did say UI-inefficient which is not quite the same thing. I mean that the implementation of layers and precomps is such that the information that you need to see and get at it is obscured by the structure of the UI.

I'm surely not alone in finding that the basic principle of having to step into a precomp is sub-optimal from a compositing point of view. I know there are ways you can make it less inefficient, but inefficient it surely is. As I say you wouldn't ideally design it that way.

Equally, it's not easy enough to see that state of a layer from an overview of the interface and that makes for inefficiency given how critical that information is.

One of the major challenges of UI design is surely to identify what information needs to be topmost and most accessible to the user. I do think the incremental evolution of Ae means that these design considerations aren't addressed as well as they might be if you were starting from scratch.

But then it really is seriously hard stuff ...

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 10:12:54 pm

look, can we just focus on the tilde key?
Most things generally need more tilde key.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/628756/

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 8:28:48 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "We'll have to agree to disagree on that. To me, to notion of tabbing to a different panel to adjust the saturation because I've just tweaked the gamma really goes against the grain and it's something you just don't have to put up with in any other grading environment. Grading is surely all about the interaction between the different controls, and not a process where you first adjust one thing then go off and adjust another. At least, most colorists will tell you that - which is one of the main reasons for using a physical interface that allows you to simultaneously makes adjustments to two different parameters, rather than have to do it serially.

Grading with a mouse is bad enough, but adding to the serial nature of the process by having to tab around as the Color Board requires you to do really seems to me to be pushing things in the wrong direction.

I'm not saying that it doesn't work, but from a UI point of view there is surely no question that it is sub-optimal."


Yes, you're right about that, but almost everything I do is done serially. Rarely can I make adjustments to more than one parameter, so in this sense, while the Color Board does not do me well without a Resolve like control panel, it does do me well on the keyboard that I have at every computer. So, there is that.

[Simon Ubsdell] "Sublime is quite a claim ;-) There are still a few things that I'd like to have shortcuts for that don't seem to be there, or maybe I haven't worked the shortcuts hard enough?"

No, you are absolutely right. But once they are there, it is so damn easy to map things in FCPX/Motion.


[Simon Ubsdell] "I think overall that Apple have, as is their wont, put a good deal of good thought into the UI design of X, but I just think there are limitations, which as far as they are concerned fall into the category of "good enough" that they currently seem a little too prone to embracing."

Perahps, but I think "good enough" needs to be framed appropriately.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 23, 2014 at 8:35:07 pm
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on Jul 23, 2014 at 8:35:23 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "But once they are there, it is so damn easy to map things in FCPX/Motion."

Hah! Agreed about X and it's getting better all the time on that score, but don't get me started on mapping in Motion - it's almost beyond belief how primitive it is, or rather how little of what you need to be able to map you can actually map.

Very strange - but then everything about Apple's attitude to Motion is strange in the extreme. Almost as though there's nobody left who understands how good an offering it actually is and how vastly better it could be with a little love (and, I'm afraid, to say some better image processing know-how).

The guys who originally built it did a simply extraordinarily brilliant job on so many levels without any doubt.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 21, 2014 at 9:53:24 pm

@#%@#$@(*~!

Anyone that shows up in toe shoes at this office gets fired. Instantly. It's in the employee manual. Every time I look at them I imagine billions of unwashable fungus floating around in a stew of grossness.

Also -we could make money off espousing fcpx?

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 21, 2014 at 10:07:37 pm

[John Davidson] "unwashable fungus"

There it is. The new name for my next punk band.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 21, 2014 at 10:39:07 pm

LOL. Glad my unfathomable disgust could fuel your musical dreams :).

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 21, 2014 at 11:12:33 pm

I mean, even Spider-man doesn't use toe shoes and that man is in a full length onesie.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos


Return to posts index

JP Pelc
Re: weird shoes, FCPX, and the sheep barn.
on Jul 25, 2014 at 6:08:53 pm

It's really disappointing how far this discussion has veered from the original topic. I came here to talk about toe-shoes


Return to posts index

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