FORUMS: list search recent posts

Adobe updates

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
Adobe updates
on Apr 20, 2017 at 12:24:30 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Apr 20, 2017 at 12:50:44 pm

Let the kibitzing begin!

https://www.provideocoalition.com/adobe-updates-premiere-pro-cc-april-2017/

And a deeper dive:







And a couple on After Effects, too:

https://www.provideocoalition.com/effects-nab-2017-update/

https://www.provideocoalition.com/effects-cc-2017/

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Morten Ranmar
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 20, 2017 at 5:57:22 pm

Actually this update for Premiere is huge!

- A completely rewritten text tool that lets you edit directly on the canvas like in Photoshop.

- After Effects templates (lower thirds etc) can be saved with editable parameters, so you can change colors, sizes, or whatever from within Premiere. Just like Motion templates, but with even more control, and can be shared through Libraries.

- simple tool for Audio sweetening, that retains the parameters if sent to Audition.

...just to name the most exciting.

- No Parking Production -

Adobe CC2014, 3 x MacPro, 3 x MbP, Ethernet File Server w. Areca ThunderRaid 8


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 20, 2017 at 10:10:26 pm

[Morten Ranmar] "Audio sweetening"

Is the hard limiter back?


Return to posts index


Robin S. Kurz
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 21, 2017 at 12:48:50 pm

[Morten Ranmar] "Just like Motion templates, but with even more control"

I'm sorry, but you clearly have no idea how deep FCP's Motion integration in fact goes. The two couldn't be any further from comparable. This is stuff you could do in FCP over five years ago. And then some. I won't even mention performance.

And the first I heard of this update was from the headline of a newsletter from Cinema5D that reads "Alert! Do Not Upgrade To Premiere Pro CC 2017.1" … 😂

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 21, 2017 at 12:59:15 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "I'm sorry, but you clearly have no idea how deep FCP's Motion integration in fact goes. "

You mean like importing a multi-clip Motion composition directly into FCPX? Oh wait...

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 21, 2017 at 1:07:03 pm

[Oliver Peters] "a multi-clip Motion composition"

Er… what about it?

- RK

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


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 21, 2017 at 1:13:04 pm

As in, you cannot directly import a multiclip Motion composition into FCPX. You can rig a complex template and bring that into X, but that's hardly the same thing.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 21, 2017 at 2:00:47 pm

[Oliver Peters] "you cannot directly import a multiclip Motion composition into FCPX"

Huh? Then I guess I have no clue what you even mean by "multiclip Motion composition", because I can't think of anything from Motion that you can't get into FCP, sorry. Other than maybe a project with audio (meaning the project yes, it's audio no).

And even if whatever it is you mean can't be done/used/imported, are you suggesting that that makes the integration of AE in PPro somehow on par?? 😃

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 21, 2017 at 7:42:53 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Huh? Then I guess I have no clue what you even mean by "multiclip Motion composition", "

Place several clips in an FCPX sequence (project). Mix of primary and connected. No audio needed. Send that to Motion as one project file without using third party plug-ins. Open in Motion and do effects and composites. Roundtrip that back as a live composition (a Motion project) - not a flat, rendered file - back into the FCPX project. Just like you used to be able to do with FCP7/Motion and can do with Premiere/AE now.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Robin S. Kurz
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 22, 2017 at 8:20:03 am
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Apr 22, 2017 at 10:21:09 am

[Oliver Peters] "Place several clips in an FCPX sequence (project). Mix of primary and connected."

😃 … love how you already gave yourself the answer twice, only to (of course) exclude them as solutions from the get go. Just a tad disingenuous, no? Because you obviously know there are many ways to do this. Is it as convenient and simple as the ol' "Send to"? No. But that may well return soon, too, along with the other options!

So yeah, if I actually need that exact functionality, and I'm fairly sure the vast majority of X users don't btw, then I'll work with ⌘⇧R, drop zones, templates OR, if I need it to a more frequent extent, I'll just give Wes a couple of bucks. And no, I won't remind anyone what that extra cost amounts to in CC dollars… Doh! Dammit. Did it again. 😇

So, again, Motion's integration is deeper and more powerful on so many levels, especially text, yes. Great for Adobe that they're getting there! Enjoy it for what it is! Both have their weaknesses. Just pointing out a rather ill-prepared comparison.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 22, 2017 at 10:40:10 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "Motion's integration is deeper and more powerful on so many levels, especially text"

I love the Motion/FCPX integration. It is deep and powerful on many levels, but the design's strength -- wrapping up Motion functionality to deploy in FCPX -- is also its weakness. You don't get to use all of Motion's power in FCPX; you only get to use what you can and do expose.

Oliver describes a workflow that starts in an editorial context, moves to a full compositing/VFX context, and returns to editorial while maintaining some linkage between the two. Robin, are you actually making the argument that there is no real need for this approach in post-production?

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

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 22, 2017 at 11:38:20 am
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Apr 22, 2017 at 11:57:56 am

[Walter Soyka] "You don't get to use all of Motion's power in FCPX; you only get to use what you can and do expose."

Sorry, but I can only see that as a strength. Disabling features and functionality that some Joe Shmo editor doesn't understand and will only use to mess everything up is a good thing in my book and is in fact the whole point. Everyone else can pop over to Motion with one click and do whatever else they need.


[Walter Soyka] "moves to a full compositing/VFX context"

FCPX is neither geared nor aimed for that. Clearly one of the reasons why e.g. Fincher chose to go with PPro. That also being a single digit percentage of the editing crowd (at best) to begin with. Win some, lose some. That's why there are choices. No shame in that.


[Walter Soyka] "are you actually making the argument that there is no real need for this approach in post-production?"

Er, no. I'm saying that it is more than possible to do what was described, even if it does require a few more clicks or even a cheap additional plugin or app. I never claimed feature parity or the likes. Of course there are differences, strengths and weaknesses. But then this started in the context of the new TEXT functionality in comparison, not "full compositing/VFX" (that being your and, indirectly, Oliver's point), so let's not shift the goal-post as needed. 😉

Or are you arguing that "Just like Motion templates, but with even more control" isn't hyperbole and factually wrong?

- RK

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


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 22, 2017 at 12:12:53 pm

I'm not shifting goalposts. I was trying to understand your point. It seemed like you were asserting there was little value to be gained from being able to move from NLE to compositor. But now you've clarified:

[Robin S. Kurz] "I never claimed feature parity or the likes. Of course there are differences, strengths and weaknesses."

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

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 22, 2017 at 12:25:21 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I'm not shifting goalposts."

Okay. Then I just don't know what "full compositing/VFX" have to do with my initial assertion.


[Walter Soyka] "It seemed like you were asserting there was little value to be gained from being able to move from NLE to compositor. But now you've clarified:"

Exactly. I clarified that it is in fact possible with both (if you insist on calling Motion "a compositor", which I don't), merely the procedures, results and general use cases differ. But again, first and foremost dissenting the notion the text integration and features were somehow comparable past a (very low) point.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 22, 2017 at 2:33:07 pm

"As in, you cannot directly import a multiclip Motion composition into FCPX. You can rig a complex template and bring that into X, but that's hardly the same thing."

Didn't Apple just hire Wes Plate? Hmmmm...

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index


Robin S. Kurz
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 22, 2017 at 3:46:09 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Apr 22, 2017 at 3:47:52 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Didn't Apple just hire Wes Plate?"

Yes. Well, I don't know about "just", but yeah, they did. 😉

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 23, 2017 at 4:01:18 am

Don't jump to conclusions. I can't speak for Wes, but I do know him. To my knowledge he wasn't specifically hired for a given task. And FWIW, it was his father who did all the software work, writing code. As you might remember, folks associated with Color (before Apple bought the company) were brought on board and then assigned to things other than developing Apple Color.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 22, 2017 at 8:25:45 am

[Morten Ranmar] "

- A completely rewritten text tool that lets you edit directly on the canvas like in Photoshop."


The old titling tool worked great and had a lot of cool options. I am not saying this new method is no good. I am saying the old titling tool already worked great.


Return to posts index


Morten Ranmar
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 22, 2017 at 8:54:25 am

The old title tool had a lot of mischiefs:

1) If you did not place the cursor in the right position, you would have to quit and fix

2) Tools did not scale correct on highres screens, and were difficult to use

3) It would clutter up the project folder with a new asset for every title you made

4) Titles needed to be real duplicated, in order to not overwrite the original title (no copy paste)

5) It was slow

- No Parking Production -

Adobe CC2014, 3 x MacPro, 3 x MbP, Ethernet File Server w. Areca ThunderRaid 8


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 22, 2017 at 2:24:42 pm

A new title tool. Finally.

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 23, 2017 at 7:14:40 am

[Scott Witthaus] "A new title tool. Finally."

Doesn't FCPX need a new titling tool much more than Premiere Pro?


Return to posts index

Morten Ranmar
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 23, 2017 at 8:14:41 am

FCPX has the ever important, much needed, super essential ... 3D text ; )

- No Parking Production -

Adobe CC2014, 3 x MacPro, 3 x MbP, Ethernet File Server w. Areca ThunderRaid 8


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 23, 2017 at 6:31:46 pm

[Morten Ranmar] "
FCPX has the ever important, much needed, super essential ... 3D text ; )"


I am not sure it is true 3-D with ray-tracing. I think it is just a tad better than Premiere Pro's 3-D titling. I have yet to see anyone create a metal object (hexagon) with FCPX's titling tool and have a glass title pass in front of it. I see cheap 3-D imitations with FCPX. Having said that with out any type of 3-D design tools FCPX's titling tool sucks ass. That is the first time I actually said anything negative about FCPX but it is true.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 23, 2017 at 6:37:01 pm

[andy patterson] "Having said that with out any type of 3-D design tools FCPX's titling tool sucks ass. That is the first time I actually said anything negative about FCPX but it is true.
"


So you have experience using FCPX to back this up?


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 24, 2017 at 11:31:38 am

[andy patterson] " FCPX's titling tool sucks ass. "

How did THIS comment not get flagged by Tim.

I've seen a lot less not get through.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 24, 2017 at 11:34:25 am
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Apr 24, 2017 at 1:56:08 pm

[Tony West] "How did THIS comment not get flagged by Tim."

Yeah, no kiddin'.
The troll-o-meter should have tilted (long ago). Not sure how that could have gone unnoticed. I've been chastised for FAR less in the past. Go figger. 😒

- RK


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 25, 2017 at 6:03:32 am

[Tony West] "[andy patterson] " FCPX's titling tool sucks ass. "

How did THIS comment not get flagged by Tim.

I've seen a lot less not get through."


Why would honest criticism get flagged? Having said that I have seen many people rant time and time again about Premiere Pro. Things like Premiere's GUI is cringe worthy or Adobe has old outdated code from the 1980s. This is the first time I ever said anything negative about FCPX. Overall I think FCPX is a good NLE.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 24, 2017 at 5:11:56 pm

[andy patterson] "I have yet to see anyone create a metal object (hexagon) with FCPX's titling tool and have a glass title pass in front of it."

Did this very quick only using FCPX, but is this what you are talking about?


11292_thisisglass.mp4.zip


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 24, 2017 at 6:19:03 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[andy patterson] "I have yet to see anyone create a metal object (hexagon) with FCPX's titling tool and have a glass title pass in front of it."

Did this very quick only using FCPX, but is this what you are talking about?"


Wow, the glass is even textured. Does it do caustics?

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 24, 2017 at 8:07:10 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Wow, the glass is even textured. Does it do caustics?"

Not that are in motion, at least, I can't see how to do it.

All the materials/textures seem to be static.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 24, 2017 at 8:33:39 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "

[Shawn Miller] "Wow, the glass is even textured. Does it do caustics?"

Not that are in motion, at least, I can't see how to do it.

All the materials/textures seem to be static."


I see, still cool though. I imagine you can do a lot with the addition of some simple glow and reflection effects.

Shawn



Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 25, 2017 at 6:48:33 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "id this very quick only using FCPX, but is this what you are talking about?


11292_thisisglass.mp4.zip"


Thanks for posting. I should have stated a 3-D Hexagon like a polyhedron. My bad. I also don't want a grey background or the metal polyhedron reflecting anything other than the glass text. Your Hexagon looks like it is reflecting skys and trees. Make the text blue glass and make the polyhedron spin as the glass slides in front of if. I think you now I want to see the ray-tracing ability of FCPX. Your Hexagon is reflecting trees and sky but your glass text is not.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 25, 2017 at 12:43:40 pm

[andy patterson] "Thanks for posting. I should have stated a 3-D Hexagon like a polyhedron. "

I'd encourage you to try it out for yourself. FCPX ≠ C4D nor is it trying to be.









Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 25, 2017 at 5:43:59 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[andy patterson] "Thanks for posting. I should have stated a 3-D Hexagon like a polyhedron. "

I'd encourage you to try it out for yourself. FCPX ≠ C4D nor is it trying to be."


That is kind of my point. What you did could be done with Premiere Pro real easy. Premiere Pro does not have a true 3-D rendering engine. It can fake 3-D animation to some extent like FCPX. As the hexagon rotated you didn't see anything than other then text become transparent. There was no reflection or refraction like a true glass shaded object in a true 3-D animation program would have. What FCPX does is a shaded previews but not a fully blown ray traced rendering. Some People who use FCPX might not be aware of the difference. There was a time when I had to use wire frame previews with 3D animation software.

I do thank you for posting.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 25, 2017 at 8:36:21 am
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Apr 25, 2017 at 11:52:28 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "is this what you are talking about?"

Why waste your time? You and I know what's possible, because we actually use FCP and know what we're talking about. The only reason for the question is to point to the fact that there are no refractions, caustics etc. yadda yadda, since FCP of course does not have them because it obviously does not use a raytracer (duh). (Not that that is the only way to get them) As if anyone using an NLE for that kind of work could or would even ever miss that or think they could expect it along with that level of speed and quality. And if so, they're simply looking in the wrong place. So what? If that's so essential, I'm guessing you're smart enough to use an actual, dedicated 3D app and an NLE.

But that's apparently being very presumptuous in certain cases. 🙄

- RK


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 25, 2017 at 5:43:47 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "[Jeremy Garchow] "is this what you are talking about?"

Why waste your time? You and I know what's possible, because we actually use FCP and know what we're talking about. The only reason for the question is to point to the fact that there are no refractions, caustics etc. yadda yadda, since FCP of course does not have them because it obviously does not use a raytracer (duh). (Not that that is the only way to get them) As if anyone using an NLE for that kind of work could or would even ever miss that or think they could expect it along with that level of speed and quality. And if so, they're simply looking in the wrong place. So what? If that's so essential, I'm guessing you're smart enough to use an actual, dedicated 3D app and an NLE.

But that's apparently being very presumptuous in certain cases. 🙄"


That is why I am not that impressed with FCPX's 3-D capabilities. Having said that some FCPX user do think FCPX is true 3-D. It is good that everyone be on the same page when talking about FCPX's capabilities.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Adobe updates
on May 15, 2017 at 4:06:39 pm

1292_thisisglass.mp4.zip

I was wondering if I could include your video clip in a video I am working on demonstrating Premiere Pro's titling tools?


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 24, 2017 at 7:55:14 am

[Morten Ranmar] "super essential ... 3D text"

Super essential? Probably not for everyone. But most certainly very popular, fast, high-quality and extremely practical, yes.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Morten Ranmar
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 24, 2017 at 8:28:57 am

Guess my sarcasm wasn't all too clear ; )

- No Parking Production -

Adobe CC2014, 3 x MacPro, 3 x MbP, Ethernet File Server w. Areca ThunderRaid 8


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 24, 2017 at 8:40:14 am

[Morten Ranmar] "Guess my sarcasm wasn't all too clear"

Oh, it was. Not to worry.

But hey, you should try Premiere's "3D text" sometime! I'd say that's not just RAYTRACED, but it also includes some serious ambient occlusion!! 😂😂







Yeah, BOY does FCP's 3D text suck big time in comparison!! I'm SO jealous.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 25, 2017 at 7:00:59 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "Yeah, BOY does FCP's 3D text suck big time in comparison!! I'm SO jealous."

I didn't say FCPX's 3D text sucked although unless things have changed the 3-D texts are lame. I don't even use 3-D text myself and have 3-D animation software. Having said that I want to see how well FCPX'x titling system can be used to make track mattes and animated lower thirds. 3-D text can look horrible. You do realize Apple got rid of the cringe worthy 3-D dock don't you? 3-D texts suck but 3-D objects can be cool for logo design. I can honestly say I have not asked for 3-D text like FCPX has to be implemented into Premiere Pro. If they want to give Premiere 3-D modeling capabilities and true ray-tracing that would be cool but otherwise don't waste the time. We CC users have AE for true 3-D capabilities.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 23, 2017 at 11:53:23 am

"Doesn't FCPX need a new titling tool much more than Premiere Pro?"

No, or not as nearly as bad as Premiere needed it. That title tool was stuck in the 1990's. In my opinion only, of course.

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 23, 2017 at 4:29:26 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "No, or not as nearly as bad as Premiere needed it. That title tool was stuck in the 1990's. In my opinion only"

I will second that emotion.

It was very frustrating to have to duplicate all of the titles to keep old versions.

If a program had 100 titles in it, you'd have to dupe all 100 to freeze the version. Very annoying and prone to lots of errors.

This new version will hopefully be a lot easier to use.

And for what it's worth, X's title tool is pretty good, especially when you start factoring the Motion Templates.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 23, 2017 at 6:19:54 pm

[Scott Witthaus] ""Doesn't FCPX need a new titling tool much more than Premiere Pro?"

No, or not as nearly as bad as Premiere needed it. That title tool was stuck in the 1990's. In my opinion only, of course."


I could just as easily say FCPX's titling tool is stuck in the 1980s but talk is cheap. What can you do with FCPX's titling tool that I cannot do with the titling tool of Premiere Pro CS 4.0?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 23, 2017 at 6:28:35 pm

[andy patterson] "I could just as easily say FCPX's titling tool is stuck in the 1980s but talk is cheap. What can you do with FCPX's titling tool that I cannot do with the titling tool of Premiere Pro CS 4.0?"

Have you USED FCPX Andy?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 23, 2017 at 6:49:58 pm

[andy patterson] "I have not used FCPX in a couple of years. The last I knew the titling tool in FCPX's titling system did not have any drawing tools. I don't think the 3-D titling tool uses ray-tracing but imitation 3-D instead. Create a metal hexagon in FCPX's titling tool and make a glass title slide in front of the chrome hexagon and post the result here on the cow."

Not having drawing tools doesn't mean it "sucks ass"


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 25, 2017 at 7:57:44 am

[Steve Connor] "Not having drawing tools doesn't mean it "sucks ass""

It is all a matter of opinion. I think when the 3-D text tool in FCPX is used more often than not it looks more hideous than the OS X 3-D dock. Remember the 3-D dock? I am not a fan of rotating text on it Z axis or rotating a picture in picture on it's Z axis. I like to create track mattes so the PIP can look a little different than a generic 16 : 9 PIP. I can create track mattes super fast using Premiere's titling tool. I like to use track mattes not 3-D text. You can do some really cool things using beveled edges as well as inner and outer strokes of Premiere Pro's titling system. You can create the look of 3-D text in Premiere Pro's titling tool real easy but you would not be able to make use of the Z axis. Everything that was shown with the new titling tool could be done with the old titling tool other other than some of the integration with AE. It is easy to create lower thirds and animate them even with PP CS 4.


Return to posts index

Doug Metz
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 25, 2017 at 1:45:40 pm

[andy patterson] "I like to create track mattes so the PIP can look a little different than a generic 16 : 9 PIP. I can create track mattes super fast using Premiere's titling tool. I like to use track mattes not 3-D text. You can do some really cool things using beveled edges as well as inner and outer strokes of Premiere Pro's titling system. You can create the look of 3-D text in Premiere Pro's titling tool real easy but you would not be able to make use of the Z axis. Everything that was shown with the new titling tool could be done with the old titling tool other other than some of the integration with AE. It is easy to create lower thirds and animate them even with PP CS 4."

I am *dying* to see an example from you using PP CS 4.

No, not literally dying. Let's say 'eager'.

Doug Metz

Anode


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 25, 2017 at 5:42:57 pm

[Doug Metz] "[andy patterson] "I like to create track mattes so the PIP can look a little different than a generic 16 : 9 PIP. I can create track mattes super fast using Premiere's titling tool. I like to use track mattes not 3-D text. You can do some really cool things using beveled edges as well as inner and outer strokes of Premiere Pro's titling system. You can create the look of 3-D text in Premiere Pro's titling tool real easy but you would not be able to make use of the Z axis. Everything that was shown with the new titling tool could be done with the old titling tool other other than some of the integration with AE. It is easy to create lower thirds and animate them even with PP CS 4."

I am *dying* to see an example from you using PP CS 4.

No, not literally dying. Let's say 'eager'.

Doug Metz

Anode"


I am on vacation but I will do a demo when I get back.


Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Adobe updates
on May 15, 2017 at 9:31:28 pm

Dying to see the demo.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 24, 2017 at 3:00:11 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Apr 24, 2017 at 3:09:54 pm

[Steve Connor] "Have you USED FCPX Andy?"

You seriously feel you have to ask? 😃


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 24, 2017 at 7:15:26 am

[Scott Witthaus] "In my opinion only, of course."

Not only yours, believe me.

Yeah, FCP's "titling tool" (which is in fact Motion, but never mind 🙄) needs more work… 😂 Hilarious.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 25, 2017 at 7:06:07 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "[Scott Witthaus] "In my opinion only, of course."

Not only yours, believe me.

Yeah, FCP's "titling tool" (which is in fact Motion, but never mind 🙄) needs more work… 😂 Hilarious."


Create a cool track matte using only FCPX titling system. Create some lower thirds and animate them using only FCPX. If you include Motion with FCPX than I can include AE with Premiere Pro.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 25, 2017 at 5:46:05 pm

[andy patterson] "Create a cool track matte using only FCPX titling system. Create some lower thirds and animate them using only FCPX."


?


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 25, 2017 at 7:44:23 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "?"

exactly. But my monitor is bigger than yours...

:-)

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 26, 2017 at 8:26:21 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "[andy patterson] "Create a cool track matte using only FCPX titling system. Create some lower thirds and animate them using only FCPX."


?"


I am not talking canned title effects. I will create something in PP CS 4.0 and have you replicate it using only FCPX. I think you might find Premiere Pro's titling tool offers a lot more than what you had first assumed.


Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Adobe updates
on May 15, 2017 at 9:21:29 pm

I am waiting to see your example.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 20, 2017 at 9:55:38 pm

One of the features I was really excited about for Ae, the Camera Shake Deblur, resulted in this:




First impression = sad face


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 20, 2017 at 11:04:42 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "First impression = sad face"

Perfect if you are working on a 1970s vinyl record cover.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 21, 2017 at 12:24:24 am

Jeremy,

I tried staring "through" that for over 5 minutes but I STILL can't see the 3D camel...

Am I doing it wrong?

; )

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Adobe updates
on Apr 24, 2017 at 12:13:35 pm

[Bill Davis] "but I STILL can't see the 3D camel"

It's a lizard, not a camel! At least that's what I saw last night....

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Adobe updates
on May 16, 2017 at 8:51:58 am

Be careful, apparently there is a serious bug in Premiere where if you delete some media cache or something (I don't use Premiere myself), it also deletes media assets.
I read this in another forum and wanted people that use it here, warn for it...

https://forums.adobe.com/message/9503050

https://helpx.adobe.com/premiere-pro/kb/avoid-potential-deletion-of-media-f...

https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe updates
on May 16, 2017 at 1:55:22 pm

[Mathieu Ghekiere] "Be careful, apparently there is a serious bug in Premiere where if you delete some media cache or something (I don't use Premiere myself), it also deletes media assets. "

Holy Shnikes. Thanks for posting this.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Adobe updates
on May 16, 2017 at 3:44:11 pm

11292_thisisglass.mp4.zip

Can I use your video clip above in my titling demonstration video? I can do my video without it but it would be nice to use your short video clip as a reference. If you can let me know either way I would appreciate it.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe updates
on May 16, 2017 at 4:37:00 pm

By all means, use it.*




*I hope you don't use it as an example of the full (or empty) capabilities of FCPX. You asked for a quick demo, I provided without much thought. You can do what you want with it, but make the comparison fair. I would much rather learn about Premiere's text capabilities, rather than FCPX's 3D shortcomings. Price does not include tax, title, license, or delivery.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Adobe updates
on May 16, 2017 at 5:35:29 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "*I hope you don't use it as an example of the full (or empty) capabilities of FCPX. You asked for a quick demo, I provided without much thought. You can do what you want with it, but make the comparison fair. I would much rather learn about Premiere's text capabilities, rather than FCPX's 3D shortcomings. Price does not include tax, title, license, or delivery."

I think you will happy with the end result. I think other people will like it as well.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Adobe updates
on May 27, 2017 at 8:07:55 pm

I posted my video. The link is below. The video is not a FCPX VS Premiere Pro video. It is a video to demonstrate that the Premiere pro titling tools are not horrible. I do prefer using mask and mattes over 3-D titles but everyone's needs are different.


https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/95549


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Adobe updates
on May 28, 2017 at 1:38:34 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I hope you don't use it as an example of the full (or empty) capabilities of FCPX."

Unfortunately for you, my predictions came true. Oh well. Better luck next time. 😏

- RK

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Adobe updates
on May 28, 2017 at 7:08:03 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "[Jeremy Garchow] "I hope you don't use it as an example of the full (or empty) capabilities of FCPX."

Unfortunately for you, my predictions came true. Oh well. Better luck next time. 😏"


You could have responded by saying "thanks for posting Andy".

Having said that you must have watched a different video because everyone else had a totally different opinion about it including Jeremy himself. My video was not a FCPX VS Premiere Pro video. I posted it to show that Premiere Pro's titling system can do some cool things. That was the only purpose of the video. After watching the video do you still think the titling system of Premiere Pro is horrible and needed a revamp? Do you think Photoshop has horrible titling capabilities? Having said that if you cannot create complex titles and simple motion graphics using Premiere Pro it is not the fault of Premiere Pro. That is what I wanted to demonstrate in the video. Did I not do that?


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Adobe updates
on May 17, 2017 at 11:00:30 am

[Mathieu Ghekiere] "there is a serious bug in Premiere where if you delete some media cache or something (I don't use Premiere myself), it also deletes media assets. "

In the first link Adobe support told the user that "that was not possible". Nice.

I love this line from the Adobe support link: "However, incorrect usage of this feature has the potential for unintentional file deletion."

They should have put quotation marks around the word "feature". But at least there seems to be a fix with yet another upgrade.

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

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