FORUMS: list search recent posts

Message from corel to adobe users

COW Forums : Adobe Creative Cloud Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Message from corel to adobe PC users
on May 17, 2013 at 6:48:31 pm

Only if you're on a PC - Mac users need not apply...

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 7:32:38 pm

[Joseph W. Bourke] "Only if you're on a PC - Mac users need not apply..."

http://www.pixelmator.com/blog/2013/05/07/cloudiness/

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 7:54:09 pm

what's interesting is that, if you took Painter (mac version said the mac head), pixelmator, Aperture, maybe Acorn, if it were broadly understood that as a battery they replace a very, very, very great deal of photoshop functionality - then you could see a customer base, currently facing their work held hostage in perpetuity, beginning to think about a fundamentally different approach to image editing and stylisation?

What would be great would be if some of the above interested parties (apple wouldn't touch it?) entered into some kind of communication, with some publicity, (to set about rudimentary app communication or something?) but maybe basically a PR splash (almost a Jim Jannard Red Style coming soon statement of intent thing, detailing work underway to say... I don't know, replace PS liquefy - gotta have it they say - in Pixelmator, leveraging painter image distortion knowhow, and that it would be a cheap pixelmator component buy in on the appstore? Five bucks? flashy stuff like that - road plan basically) ....well, then that could finally begin the process of dissolving photoshop from its currently stitched together parts into a large dead puddle.

You would have to think that in the right circumstances, over a reasonable timeline, you could actually tear photoshop apart- tear it into more manageable, communicating, cheap, buy to own pieces.

It's maybe just that no one has had the motivation to try? Until now? The potential market rewards would, you would have to think, be pretty gargantuan.

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


Return to posts index

Tim Kolb
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 8:48:42 pm

Well...if you're on Windows, I would recommend the Pinnacle Studio 16 software for 129 USD over Corel Video Studio X6, though Video Studio has a feature where you can use your DSLR to do stop motion and grab the frames on the fly...for 80 USD, if that was the only feature you used...it would still be a good value.

All Windows only unfortunately...

TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,

Adobe Certified Instructor


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 8:24:33 pm

And just a little icing on that cake

The Most Successful Release Ever
A whopping total of 500,000 downloads in just a single week have made Pixelmator 2.2 Blueberry our most successful release ever.
http://www.pixelmator.com/blog/2013/05/16/the-most-successful-release-ever-...

Let's hope they get a little flush with some R&D $$$ to step up development.



Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 8:31:57 pm

well now, would you just look at that.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 8:58:54 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "well now, would you just look at that."

But seriously, guys, while Pixelmator is a bucketful of amazing value for 15 dollars, surely anyone would have to admit that it's still a million miles from what Photoshop currently offers?

The lead Photoshop has over the competition currently looks formidable unassailable.

Whereas the much less talked-about Motion/AE comparison is far closer than you'd think.

It's curious that in all the furore no-one seems to be going to have another look at what Motion can actually do.

Not sure why that's the case, but it's a crying shame.

If only more users would take a moment to consider Motion seriously and provide feedback to Apple, then Apple might have the incentive to take what's already an astonishingly good value and potentially amazingly powerful mograph product and turn it into a genuine front-runner.

Something tells me that's AE's mantle of untouchability means that rival offerings are never going to get a look-in.

If you think Motion is "just a toy", please have another look - it's far deeper than you can possibly imagine. And hey, now's the time to do it ...

Don't assume that the insanely cheap price-tag means that this isn't a serious professional tool.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 9:17:24 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "while Pixelmator is a bucketful of amazing value for 15 dollars, surely anyone would have to admit that it's still a million miles from what Photoshop currently offers? "

A market opportunity could put the foot on the accelerator. It's not going to happen in a few months but in the one year plus range it could cover some ground. Keep in mind that one reason people skip Photoshop upgrades is that there's a good portion of the market, some of them professionals, that simply don't need all the features in Photoshop.

It can import PSD files as well although I believe it loses some things including layer effects. Even improving that would be a boon for those of us who need to import client files for small changes.



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 9:21:14 pm

[Craig Seeman] "It can import PSD files as well although I believe it loses some things including layer effects."

Currently it doesn't even have layer effects itself though these are supposedly in the pipeline.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 9:25:28 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "But seriously, guys, while Pixelmator is a bucketful of amazing value for 15 dollars, surely anyone would have to admit that it's still a million miles from what Photoshop currently offers?
"


shush - pixelmator is right on the cusp, and photoshop is inches from evisceration. right? riiight?

to motion - weird timing? today right - I actually booted it up because I was in a EU broadcaster London EMEA outpost sort of polishing a bunch of promos? So as it goes - no adobe suite: FCP, calender, and contacts on a dual core xeon from yesteryear?

had time to kill with stuff effectively done. Everything is 4:3 anamorphic interlaced SD PAL. So I go Germanic, and physically sent the FCP projects to motion for kicks (ok there is a punchline there involving "send to") I swear to god it's actually the first time I've opened motion in five years. Last time was to use it for automated endboards in another country.

How did I not know that thing (even 4) actually works? Did CC with levels, re-lighting, teensy bit of diffuse glow, vignette, whatever. I damn near like that timeline. the fact that the effects have their own layer in out points duration and stuff - madness I say.

but then I pressed render - and so - that was insane? ok it was SD - but there were a fair-ish bunch of effects stacked up on every clip in general, the mac was old, - but motion spit out a 30" spot in... seriously - three/four minutes?
I actually said "what now?" out loud in the room. is the new motion that baseline fast?

I know you spent a ton of time developing FX plug stuff on the new one... you still like?

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 9:51:59 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I know you spent a ton of time developing FX plug stuff on the new one... you still like?"

Hiya

Yes, I do like. In fact, I like a lot.

I find I spend more and more time in Motion that I used to spend in AE - and oddly time that I used to spend in Photoshop as well - simply because I can get the work done so much faster most of the time (and we're talking film projects pretty much the whole time).

And that's nothing to do with familiarity - it's because, among other things, it's engineered t give you instant feedback in a way that AE is still only just catching up with.

Believe it or not, Motion is very, very deep, despite looking like a toy on the surface, but you'll never know unless you start digging in.

Hey, it's a long, long way from perfect, but then it's got to be the most unloved piece of software ever made - and Apple, bless 'em, keep plugging away at it and it does get better.

Just think how much better it could get if just a few AE users took the time to get to know it and put in their requests to Apple.

But then I always think a sky full of flying pigs would be quite neat as well.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 10:20:37 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Believe it or not, Motion is very, very deep, despite looking like a toy on the surface, but you'll never know unless you start digging in. "

one is inclined to completely take your word there. It genuinely is weird timing. I needed to look like I was doing something useful today - V4 is a perfectly fine place to be, and I was only digging around for what I needed.

It is a different feel to AE that's for sure. It kind of made a weirdly nice change on some level? I actually half liked it?
It gets back to the same issue as PS - AE is an effective monolith?

I really did work pixelmator at the mall for the two weeks - the thing you realise is you can get good software to work? Particularly if you've got PS game to begin with. ways and means.

no more than apple with X - there is possibly a wee bit of a genie out the bottle here. I am - I swear - actually definitely downloading motion - which I had not.
Its the price of two curries to own. Although not having what i had today - send to motion - er, from FCPX (draw a veil) is a bit surprising. blurbed about that below.

surely motion should be an alternative post edit sweetener? to carve off that segment of the AE settlement? As in - the rest as core CC can go to davinci?

and so, the compelling adobe Ragnarok scenarios march on.

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


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 10:54:20 pm

The Keyer in Motion is top-notch. Where it's lacking for me is in Tracking, I find the Tracker drifts a lot when things get slightly complex. AE has Mocha and a 3D Tracker. Smoke doesn't have Planar, 3D or Shape Tracking, but its 2D Tracker is blazing fast and very robust. Mograph AE guys may also miss Particular and Form, Motion's particles are not as customisable.

But for sure, it's a powerful package. I don't use it much as my workflow is offline/Smoke/Resolve. But if I need Text stuff done, I'm always tempted to step in to Motion. I don't usually though, even though fancy Text in Smoke is a pain.

Just too many apps. Add in Syntheyes, Mocha and Photoshop and I'm all tapped out. My hope is that Smoke beefs up it's Grading toolset and adds a 3D Tracker, that way I can chuck the rest and just go FCPX and Smoke.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 11:37:02 pm

[Sandeep Sajeev] "AE has Mocha and a 3D Tracker. "

i think you mean slightly hard to use heroin, and actual heroin.

our problem, holding not great hands (#adobe2014 people), is adobe have actually engaged in some deadly serious R&D?
the efficacy of that 3D camera tracker is a joke.

my one - I got rock steady text and stuff over two booths, off a hand held whip pan, with neither in shot at the same time, across a berlin floor show -
in a single shot - yes split the solve for each end at the mid point and yes much scrabbling deleting points and lassoing points but still. just surreal software.
I almost didn't know what I was doing and in lock terms the AE bits might as well have actually been in the room.

still - maaaybe let's try and not mention that kind of thing. right at this minute.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 18, 2013 at 11:22:29 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "the efficacy of that 3D camera tracker is a joke.

my one - I got rock steady text and stuff over two booths, off a hand held whip pan, with neither in shot at the same time, across a berlin floor show -
in a single shot - yes split the solve for each end at the mid point and yes much scrabbling deleting points and lassoing points but still. just surreal software.
I almost didn't know what I was doing and in lock terms the AE bits might as well have actually been in the room."


Though if you're really interested in a proper 3D tracker you really should check out the insanely inspired genius of Syntheyes. Ron Andersson is crazily brilliant and it's one of the best value products around - one of the best buys I've ever made. And it keeps getting better.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 18, 2013 at 11:25:49 am

+1 for Syntheyes. Super fast 3D Tracking.

Looks weird, but don't judge it by the UI.


Return to posts index

James Culbertson
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 18, 2013 at 4:04:46 am

[Sandeep Sajeev] "Where it's lacking for me is in Tracking,"

http://www.imagineersystems.com/videos/apple-motion-5-and-mocha-track-impor...

"Video tutorial covers the workflow to import mocha's advanced planar tracking into Apple Motion 5. Note: all mocha, mocha AE and mocha Pro versions after v2.5 support Apple Motion. The bundled Adobe AE version does not."


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 18, 2013 at 11:10:28 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I really did work pixelmator at the mall for the two weeks - the thing you realise is you can get good software to work? Particularly if you've got PS game to begin with. ways and means."

It's good to know that Pixelmator came through under fire like that - that must have been one hairy fortnight.



[Aindreas Gallagher] "no more than apple with X - there is possibly a wee bit of a genie out the bottle here. I am - I swear - actually definitely downloading motion - which I had not.
Its the price of two curries to own. "


The price point is just madness - though I hadn't done the calculation in curry units before.

But I can't help thinking Apple aren't helping the perception of it by pitching it so incredibly low. I'd happily have paid ten times that amount for Motion 5 to be honest. Others though must be thinking that at 50 bucks this must be the iMovie Pro of the mograph world (as it were) - which is a big misconception.

To my mind Motion is Apple's one good deed in a dirty world. They really have very little need give away so much for so little!

On second thoughts, though, the fact that it wasn't killed off with the rest of FCS does suggest they have interesting plans for it - and of course the whole publishing thing was a brilliant innovation that even the most grudging have had to admire.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 9:40:28 pm

I most certainly would - but I'm on a PC...

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 21, 2013 at 5:48:20 pm

Wow, I can't believe I missed a conversation about Motion and Ae! Most of what I would have said has been said, but as a big Ae user and early Motion adopter, there are a few things that I'd like to add or amplify.


[Simon Ubsdell] "Something tells me that's AE's mantle of untouchability means that rival offerings are never going to get a look-in."

I don't think Adobe is getting cocky here -- Ae continues to improve significantly with every release.

And they shouldn't get cocky. IBM, Microsoft, RIM... technology is full of companies who were thought untouchable and proven otherwise.


[Simon Ubsdell] "Motion is way more than adequate as an AE replacement for most video editors' needs. "

Almost certainly true.


[Shawn Miller] "I don't think it's snobbery that keeps Motion from becoming a serious challenger to After Effects... it's lack of flexibility. Motion seems designed to let editors develop motion graphics quickly (that's not a bad thing, BTW). But it just doesn't seem like Motion's focus is complexity (i.e. layer heavy compositions and scripting). For Motion to be a real alternative to AE, it's got to be more than an editor's tool... at least, that's what I think."

Also almost certainly true.


[Chris Harlan] "Apple certainly could redo it, but I don't think they're interested. I thinks exactly where they want it right now."

Again, almost certainly true. Motion is almost ten years old now -- it's actually pretty mature. I suspect Apple will continue adding features, but I doubt they will dramatically alter its fundamental philosophy.



[Chris Harlan] "For instance, I don't think they'll push beyond 2.5D, or allow models to be imported. I think that's a wall for them."

Here I part with Chris.

I think that something like real 3D particle systems or model importing makes a ton of sense for Motion. It's something that a user could exploit to add a lot of polish for relatively little effort, and it's something that Motion could run super-fast on the GPU without compromising responsiveness.


[Simon Ubsdell] "My guess is that Apple get very little feedback about Motion at all - which really doesn't help with getting the product to develop to its full potential. So please, do think of taking some time to submit those requests and things could change."

What would you like to see changed, Simon?

I think the tough problem here is that most of the changes I would want to see in Motion are against its nature. I think Motion is built to be a motion graphics sketchpad -- the fastest way to see your idea come to life. Just like a sketchpad, its limits can be quickly met. My usual argument about Motion is that it has a high floor but a low ceiling. Can you really raise the ceiling without lowering the floor?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 21, 2013 at 6:01:59 pm

[Walter Soyka] "[Chris Harlan] "Apple certainly could redo it, but I don't think they're interested. I thinks exactly where they want it right now."

Again, almost certainly true. Motion is almost ten years old now -- it's actually pretty mature. I suspect Apple will continue adding features, but I doubt they will dramatically alter its fundamental philosophy."


You guys could well be right about this - though I hope you're not - but I'd just like to reiterate a point that I made way back up the thread somewhere:

Before the advent of FCP X and Motion 5, the argument that Motion had more or less hit the buffers in terms of further development was entirely plausible, although I would argue that the addition of the Link Behavior in Motion 4 was a huge advance in terms of enabling expression type relationships.

However, since we now know that Motion is a major and vital component of the FCP X ecosystem which is itself very young, it is surely not unreasonable to imagine that Apple could be contemplating moving Motion along a lot more rapidly now.

Rigging and Publishing are two innovations that none of us I'm sure saw coming and are far from negligible.

Whether future development takes it closer to AE, or simply off in a completely new Apple-type direction that may or may not please its current fans, is quite another matter!

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 21, 2013 at 6:48:18 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "However, since we now know that Motion is a major and vital component of the FCP X ecosystem which is itself very young, it is surely not unreasonable to imagine that Apple could be contemplating moving Motion along a lot more rapidly now."

I agree this would all make sense if it were what they cared about. But, if they cared about it, it seems to me you would be able to round trip by now. I won't believe that Apple actually believes in an FCP X ecosystem until they deal with that, which they have shown no signs of doing.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 21, 2013 at 7:41:13 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I agree this would all make sense if it were what they cared about. But, if they cared about it, it seems to me you would be able to round trip by now. "

The lack of round-tripping is truly mystifying - it looks like it should be so simple to achieve in that FCP X embeds a complete Motion XML for each effect that you add. It's seemingly already there in the architecture just waiting to happen.

Which makes the optimist in me think that maybe they have an even better plan up their sleeve when it finally comes to unveiling whatever round-tripping will finally look like.

Who knows what the internal politics of Apple actually are (no-one unless you work there) but there are some seriously clever people working on Motion/FCP X, however frustrating the results that trickle out.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 21, 2013 at 6:02:55 pm

[Walter Soyka] "[Simon Ubsdell] "My guess is that Apple get very little feedback about Motion at all - which really doesn't help with getting the product to develop to its full potential. So please, do think of taking some time to submit those requests and things could change."

What would you like to see changed, Simon?"


Just three things:

Expressions, expressions and expressions ;-)

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 21, 2013 at 6:12:16 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I think that something like real 3D particle systems or model importing makes a ton of sense for Motion. It's something that a user could exploit to add a lot of polish for relatively little effort, and it's something that Motion could run super-fast on the GPU without compromising responsiveness."

I think we could well see these coming from third parties - as long as they can see the potential market for them.

I doubt they'd be high on Apple's list of things to address at this point, if ever.

The FCP X model of anticipating third parties to supplement even quite basic functionality has worked out incredibly well for them - perhaps better than they deserve, to be honest!

I can imagine they'd ideally like the same process to happen with Motion - or rather keep happening, since there are a reasonable number of impressive offerings already - Mocha planar tracking of course, and the sheer awesomeness that is PixelConduit.

Quartz Composer, while it still exists, provides a relatively easy way to create Motion plug-ins - as I mentioned above, I found it pretty straightforward to build a basic 3D model importer for Motion 5 this way.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 21, 2013 at 6:39:19 pm

[Walter Soyka] "[Chris Harlan] "For instance, I don't think they'll push beyond 2.5D, or allow models to be imported. I think that's a wall for them."

Here I part with Chris.

I think that something like real 3D particle systems or model importing makes a ton of sense for Motion. It's something that a user could exploit to add a lot of polish for relatively little effort, and it's something that Motion could run super-fast on the GPU without compromising responsiveness.
"


Hey! I would LOVE to see it. And, yes, I think it makes a great deal of sense. I just think the minds that make up the heart of Apple look at all this stuff, and think "Oh, that so 20th Century." From my POV, they have no interest and little incentive. They could kill off Pro Apps now, and not seriously damage their business at all. My guess is that there are a number of people within Apple who would welcome such a move because they see that slice of the business as nothing more than an antique distraction from Apple's truer purposes.

How different is Motion 5 from Motion 4? Other than a facelift so that it fits better with X? Really, it hasn't developed much in five years. Currently, it is being treated as toss-away loss leader at 50 bucks, which is a ridiculous price for everything that it offers. Apple doesn't have to do anything to the package other than let people who have previously shunned it, rediscover it. Why would it be worth it to them to go the extra mile to compete with the upper end of AE's tool set? I can see them leaving it to third-party developers, like they've done with so many of X's shortcomings, but I just don't see them having enough interest to go further. I mean, its been two years and you still can't even round trip to X.

I'd love it if they went for it, though.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 21, 2013 at 6:45:08 pm

[Chris Harlan] "How different is Motion 5 from Motion 4?"

If you use FCPX, the difference is pretty significant.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 21, 2013 at 6:47:21 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "If you use FCPX, the difference is pretty significant."

i'm now finally starting to use rigging in Motion and I have to say it's very useful

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 21, 2013 at 7:45:56 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Chris Harlan] "How different is Motion 5 from Motion 4?"

If you use FCPX, the difference is pretty significant.
"


I certainly understand that Motion 5 is far more useful to you if you use X, in its ability to facilitate X, but in terms of what it can achieve as a compositor--which is what we are discussing here--the changes are relatively minute. Let's also not forget that, whatever gains it has made in its relationship with X, it has lost the ability to round trip, which is also significant.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 21, 2013 at 7:48:30 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I certainly understand that Motion 5 is far more useful to you if you use X, in its ability to facilitate X, but in terms of what it can achieve as a compositor--which is what we are discussing here--the changes are relatively minute."

Rather bizarrely we actually lost something in the move from 4 to 5, namely direct access to the Core Image filters.

Other than that, and the addition of Rigging and Publishing, Motion 5 is functionally identical to Motion 4 - though apparently there have been some very major changes under the hood.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 21, 2013 at 9:52:38 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I certainly understand that Motion 5 is far more useful to you if you use X, in its ability to facilitate X, but in terms of what it can achieve as a compositor--which is what we are discussing here--the changes are relatively minute."

That's like saying further interoperabailty between Ae and Pr presents a minute change to Ae and FCP7 workflows.

While true, it's skewing the "minutiae" in favor of a certain outcome. Rigging and Publishing, looking at it from a pure development standpoint, is not a minute effort.

[Chris Harlan] "Let's also not forget that, whatever gains it has made in its relationship with X, it has lost the ability to round trip, which is also significant."

Yep. I'm with Simon in my optimism that round tripping will come back some day. I mentioned my gripe with Motion is that you can't get any pre determined cuts in to it, which hampers me using it, personally.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 22, 2013 at 1:05:20 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Chris Harlan] "I certainly understand that Motion 5 is far more useful to you if you use X, in its ability to facilitate X, but in terms of what it can achieve as a compositor--which is what we are discussing here--the changes are relatively minute."

That's like saying further interoperabailty between Ae and Pr presents a minute change to Ae and FCP7 workflows.

While true, it's skewing the "minutiae" in favor of a certain outcome. Rigging and Publishing, looking at it from a pure development standpoint, is not a minute effort.
"


I'm not trying to skew anything. And, I don't mean to imply that Motion is some sort of abandoned child. All we're talking about here is whether Apple has shown any sign of wanting to challenge the remoter provinces of AE. The conversation is about whether or not Apple will jump on a perceived CC weakness to pump up Motion into a brawny AE killer. I think Motion is already brawny in its own right, but I don't see the incentive being there for Apple to do much more than they are already doing with it.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 9:09:57 pm

Today's US Mac App Store rankings are interesting.
Of the top 10 Grossing Apps 9 of them are Apple. The only none Apple app in that top 10 is Pixelmator. it's ahead of both iMovie and iPhoto.
It's also ranked number 6 in the top 10 Paid Apps.

Looking at the reviews numbers since its release on May 9
5 stars 160
4 stars 9
3 stars 3
2 stars 3
1 star 1

So as they note, the highest rated App in the App Store at the moment.
Lots of references to Photoshop in the written reviews and some users saying they would be willing to pay much more (obviously wanting to get it closer to Photoshop feature set).

Let's hope the fire has been lit and the get the capital to expand development.



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 9:14:24 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Let's hope the fire has been lit and they get the capital to expand development."

I'd say Adobe's setting a bunch of things on fire these days... ;)

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 9:08:14 pm

[Craig Seeman] "And just a little icing on that cake"

One weekend Pixelmator sales = the total Creative Cloud user base after a year. Food for thought.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 9:16:40 pm

Well it's a free upgrade for existing users, so that 500,000 is unlikely to be all new users. I qualified for the free upgrade and I like the new Shape tools a lot.

RE Simon's comment: i think if you're a photographer, retoucher, or print designer, then Photoshop is far more efficient, and Pixelmator is lacking in some key areas. But if you're an editor whose tasks are more basic, then it's a really good tool. Unless you get sent files that have Layer Styles baked in, in which case things fall apart pretty comprehensively.

On the plus side, support for Layer Styles from Photoshop is scheduled for release later this year, and this new influx of cash should speed things up.

Glad they're doing well, I have a lot of affection for Pixelmator.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 9:27:24 pm

[Sandeep Sajeev] "if you're an editor whose tasks are more basic, then it's a really good tool."

Absolutely. It's probably more than adequate for most video editor's purposes.

And that being so (and sorry to repeat myself), then Motion is way more than adequate as an AE replacement for most video editors' needs.

I suspect there's a degree of snobbery surrounding AE that keeps them from assessing Motion to any serious degree.

It is almost certain that most video editors have never given Motion more than a cursory look and as a result they've missed out on the best value mograph app going.

OK, I'll get my coat ...

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Rich Rubasch
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 9:31:48 pm

It's not snobbery towards other software it's functionality and completeness that makes AE the tool of choice. Plus for some of us more than 13 years of experience with AE.

Rich Rubasch
Tilt Media Inc.
Video Production, Post, Studio Sound Stage
Founder/President/Editor/Designer/Animator
http://www.tiltmedia.com


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 9:39:22 pm

[Rich Rubasch] "It's not snobbery towards other software it's functionality and completeness that makes AE the tool of choice. Plus for some of us more than 13 years of experience with AE."

Of course, AE is far more developed than Motion - it would be idiotic to pretend otherwise.

However my point was that Motion is way more than adequate for the needs of most video editors and that is surely unarguable.

Particularly if you are thinking, as quite a few users appear to be, that Pixelmator is a plausible substitute for Photoshop - for your needs.

Motion will only get better if more users get on board and post their feedback to Apple.

Like any software you need to take more than five minutes to get to see what it can really do - I think snobbery stops a lot of users getting beyond those initial five minutes with Motion, but I could of course be wrong.

So what's keeping you?

Oh, and Motion costs less than 50 bucks, plus you get to own it forever.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 9:52:25 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "However my point was that Motion is way more than adequate for the needs of most video editors and that is surely unarguable.
"


quite - point being as of today I now totally get why everyone on X was going "send to motion please" - on ver4 the timeline comes in neatly, for a video editor to sweeten, the ver.4 I had can do quite a lot of what you would want to do with an edit? as an alternative to an AE sweeten - as in a situation where its mostly CC, re-lighting and some brand type stuff?

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 18, 2013 at 9:21:54 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] " I now totally get why everyone on X was going "send to motion please" - on ver4 the timeline comes in neatly"

Yes. I own five, but I still use version four because of its easy integration with a Legacy timeline. And, really, there isn't much difference between 4 and 5.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 17, 2013 at 10:50:56 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "So what's keeping you?"

It's Mac only, and there's no scripting engine... :-)

Seriously though, I don't think it's snobbery that keeps Motion from becoming a serious challenger to After Effects... it's lack of flexibility. Motion seems designed to let editors develop motion graphics quickly (that's not a bad thing, BTW). But it just doesn't seem like Motion's focus is complexity (i.e. layer heavy compositions and scripting). For Motion to be a real alternative to AE, it's got to be more than an editor's tool... at least, that's what I think.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 18, 2013 at 12:27:10 am

[Shawn Miller] "Seriously though, I don't think it's snobbery that keeps Motion from becoming a serious challenger to After Effects... it's lack of flexibility. Motion seems designed to let editors develop motion graphics quickly (that's not a bad thing, BTW). But it just doesn't seem like Motion's focus is complexity (i.e. layer heavy compositions and scripting). For Motion to be a real alternative to AE, it's got to be more than an editor's tool... at least, that's what I think."

Yes, I agree. Motion is a terrific tool, and I use it all the time, because its fast and suits my needs, but AE is quite a bit more powerful. Apple certainly could redo it, but I don't think they're interested. I thinks exactly where they want it right now.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 18, 2013 at 5:44:47 am

[Chris Harlan] "
Yes, I agree. Motion is a terrific tool, and I use it all the time, because its fast and suits my needs, but AE is quite a bit more powerful. Apple certainly could redo it, but I don't think they're interested. I thinks exactly where they want it right now."


That's a shame. I know Apple has the talent, the dollars, and the expertise to do something insanely good with Motion. But for whatever reason, they just seem to lack the will... very frustrating. And that coming from an AE guy on Windows! :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 18, 2013 at 10:01:38 am

[Shawn Miller] "[Chris Harlan] "
Motion is a terrific tool, and I use it all the time, because its fast and suits my needs, but AE is quite a bit more powerful. Apple certainly could redo it, but I don't think they're interested. I thinks exactly where they want it right now."

That's a shame. I know Apple has the talent, the dollars, and the expertise to do something insanely good with Motion. But for whatever reason, they just seem to lack the will... very frustrating. And that coming from an AE guy on Windows! :-)"


In response to Shawn, Chris, Aindreas and Sandeep, I just wanted to clarify what I was meaning.

MOTION AND AE: Clearly a shoot-out between Motion and AE could have only one winner as things currently stand.

But then a shoot-out between AE and Nuke would be similarly one-sided if you were talking about high-end compositing. This is the point where people rush in and point out that one or two notable mavericks have done some top end feature film work in AE, but this actually just proves a point I want to make:

It is clearly possible to push a tool to perform way beyond what it appears to be primarily designed to achieve - and that is very healthy for the more rapid development and broader acceptance of the tool generally. If it can happen for AE, it can happen for Motion - if enough users help to build the momentum behind the product. Something which is definitely not happening with Motion at the moment.

But maybe now is an opportune time to encourage Apple and third party developers to grow the app.

MOTION PIXELMATOR: I've hijacked this thread to talk about Motion but it's originally about whether or not Pixelmator is, or could be, a viable alternative to Photoshop for Video Editors.

People here have generally commented very favourably on Pixelmator's potential for this field, and rightly so in my view. If enough users give enough of the right feedback, and of course buy the product in sufficient numbers to fund R&D, there is no question it can grow into a highly successful tool that can genuinely start to rival Photoshop before too long.

And if the gap between Pixelmator and Photoshop is perceived as being already close enough to be of interest for the Video Editor, a fortiori the same applies to Motion and AE. I would contend that Motion is in fact currently a lot closer to AE than Pixelmator is to Photoshop.

All it needs is a bit of love, and that brings me to ...

MOTION AND FEEDBACK: How many AE users (and potential users generally) have looked at Motion, kicked the tires and walked away - without leaving any kind of feedback request for what essential features they thought were missing? My guess is that Apple get very little feedback about Motion at all - which really doesn't help with getting the product to develop to its full potential.

So please, do think of taking some time to submit those requests and things could change.

MOTION & THIRD PARTY SUPPORT: It is clearly unfair to look at features in AE that are provided by third parties and claim them as proof of the inherent superiority of AE. There are even misconceptions about what third party support exists for Motion as James points out above in respect of Mocha's planar tracking:

http://www.imagineersystems.com/videos/apple-motion-5-and-mocha-track-impor...

The point is there is an army of developers out there who would be only too eager to exploit a market for Motion plug-ins if they saw enough evidence that that market had enough potential.

Again, there's a chicken and egg problem - but this is best solved if enough users gravitate to trying Motion and start to lobby for that third party support.

I'd guess there's no reason why you can't have Trapcode Particular for Motion - other than the fact that not enough users have ever asked for it. Developers don't have the luxury to develop on spec for platforms that may or may not gain traction in the future.

MOTION & VIDEO EDITORS: There is clearly a very broad spectrum on which you might find a professional Video Editor ranging all the way from those that only ever spend their days doing straight editorial (and the occasional Arial caption) to the other end where you find those who spend most of their time doing mograph and/or visual effects and relatively little in actual editorial.

My unverifiable contention would be that if you looked on the mid-point of that spectrum you'd find the ideal sweet spot for Motion where the cumbersome Leviathan that is AE is really not the right beast to be turning to and where Motion with its different architecture is much better suited to delivering fast results. (My guess would be that the broad middle of Video Editors do not spend significant amounts of their working day solving tricky 3D tracks, devising complex scripts or flying particles in every direction.)

I think that not enough of editors in this range have ever actually given Motion much of a shot, that not enough of them have yet bought Motion 5 to indicate to Apple their interest in using the product, that not enough of them have ever filled in a Motion feedback request to help Apple make the product fit into this market. (Go over to the COW's Motion forum and you will find there are days that pass without a sniff of activity beyond the the occasional tumbleweed rolling through. This is not a product that is being actively explored by significant numbers of users curious to find out more ...)

Motion is a deeply unloved product - with enormous potential - that's waiting for its moment in the sun. I have no interest in seeing AE lose market share, but I would really like to see a pick-up in the pace of development for a tool that I really enjoy using and that saves me time every single day.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 18, 2013 at 10:59:52 am

Simon, I am glad you brought up Motion in this thread. Based on our discussion, I opened it up last night after the end of a hilariously mad Copa del Rey final (soccerball fans will get it) , and spent a couple of hours really pushing my experience with it. I worked out Text Animations, linked them to Particle Emitters and Tracked the whole thing over a live action background.

It was badass. I'd forgotten just how fast it was, and even though I was always aware of how good it could be (having used Motion 2 almost exclusively to create Type Treatments for a Moschino campaign a few years ago) I was taken aback by how much easier it was to get Type looking and moving cool, than in say Smoke.

I have posted a feature request on the Autodesk Smoke forum on The Area, to consider adding Motion interchange/exchange functionality in upcoming versions of Smoke. I was unaware that OpenEXR I/O was supported in Motion, but I think being able to send Action Camera Data via FBX or something similar, to Motion for Type/Particle work (as that is something that's lacking in Smoke) and back, would be fantastic.

[Simon Ubsdell] "My guess is that Apple get very little feedback about Motion at all - which really doesn't help with getting the product to develop to its full potential.

So please, do think of taking some time to submit those requests and things could change."


I have never submitted any feedback to the Motion team. I will send copious amounts in the next few weeks.


[Simon Ubsdell] "Motion is a deeply unloved product - with enormous potential - that's waiting for its moment in the sun. I have no interest in seeing AE lose market share, but I would really like to see a pick-up in the pace of development for a tool that I really enjoy using and that saves me time every single day."

When 5 came out, I just messed around with the new features, the Keyer and brought some footage in and took the Tracker for a spin. And then kind of left it at that. Thanks again for sharing such positive feedback on this thread, I am now going to shell out for the Ripple Motion Series, and give it a proper go on an upcoming job.

It will be a relief, after the amount of grief Smoke's Text Module(s) caused me on the last project I worked on.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 18, 2013 at 11:18:14 am

[Sandeep Sajeev] "It was badass. I'd forgotten just how fast it was, and even though I was always aware of how good it could be (having used Motion 2 almost exclusively to create Type Treatments for a Moschino campaign a few years ago) I was taken aback by how much easier it was to get Type looking and moving cool, than in say Smoke."

Hi Sandeep - glad you gave it another shot. Yes, indeed the text animation stuff is very fast, and that's just the stuff you can get straight out of the box. Once you start applying some of your Smoke/AE know-how you'll be flying.

[Sandeep Sajeev] "I was unaware that OpenEXR I/O was supported in Motion"

I think that says something, doesn't it? Log DPX support is good too.

Would love something like FBX support too - could open up some really interesting possibilities.

[Sandeep Sajeev] "I have never submitted any feedback to the Motion team. I will send copious amounts in the next few weeks."

That's really great to hear :)

[Sandeep Sajeev] "When 5 came out, I just messed around with the new features, the Keyer and brought some footage in and took the Tracker for a spin."

But seriously, how about that Keyer? Again, it looks like a bit of a toy but somehow it's one of the very best keyers you can find and just offensively easy to use - it just didn't need to be that good. There's no understanding Apple sometimes.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 18, 2013 at 12:42:16 pm

and so it came to pass - I own motion 5.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 18, 2013 at 2:52:19 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "and so it came to pass - I own motion 5."

Great :)

OK, that's me done - I'm off to see if Apple are going to pay me that commission ;-)

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 18, 2013 at 6:13:33 pm

Simon, I agree with everything you are saying above. I wasn't talking Motion down; I actually love the thing. I've been a Motion fan since version one, and have been advocating it in the face of raised eyebrows and snickers for years. I've been able to do some very complex things with it, and have always hoped that it would somehow fully grow into the AE space. My point above is that I don't believe that Apple is interested in driving Motion's outer edges into competition with AE's more industrial-strength aspects. They could. But I don't think they will. For instance, I don't think they'll push beyond 2.5D, or allow models to be imported. I think that's a wall for them.

Of course, now, there are many, many people who can finally discover how powerful Motion actually is. So, that's a good thing.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 18, 2013 at 7:18:26 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Of course, now, there are many, many people who can finally discover how powerful Motion actually is. So, that's a good thing."

I have to saw that all this talk about it has pushed me to try and play with it more.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 18, 2013 at 7:41:01 pm

[Chris Harlan] "My point above is that I don't believe that Apple is interested in driving Motion's outer edges into competition with AE's more industrial-strength aspects. They could. But I don't think they will. For instance, I don't think they'll push beyond 2.5D, or allow models to be imported. I think that's a wall for them."

Hi Chris

I know you're a big Motion fan, didn't mean to imply otherwise, sorry.

I think you could be right about Apple's current position on this - it's settled into its own niche which isn't really pretending to challenge AE, but then I like to try and be optimistic about it.

Maybe if Apple see a change in attitudes towards Motion and a greater adoption they might see a reason to rethink their position. At the same time, there could be third party solutions which fill some of the gaps.

You talk about importing models and in fact I was looking into a plug-in that gives you that functionality - a basic sort of Element 3D kind of thing on a far less ambitious scale. I realised after a while I wasn't going to get close to a marketable product (too many big gaps in my skillset, I'm afraid) but it became clear that it would be a relatively easy task for someone more talented than me to gets to grips with it. (I know there's another developer that's also working on this and they have released a sort of alpha version, I think based on the sort of approach I was following.)

Suffice it to say, there are things like this that are reasonably achievable and if we started to see more of it happening, then there could a sea-change in how Motion is perceived and used.

And not all of the necessary components need to come from Apple. It's not as though AE itself doesn't need third party stuff to make is at attractive as it currently is.

However, I come back to my original point that none of this is terribly likely to happen unless there are signs of some much more serious take-up among users - along with feedback as to what they want.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 18, 2013 at 8:22:23 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I think you could be right about Apple's current position on this - it's settled into its own niche which isn't really pretending to challenge AE, but then I like to try and be optimistic about it. "

A marketing door that would have been much harder for Motion to travel through (as an AE competitor) has opened a bit. Considering that Apple is a hardware company that uses software to sell that hardware, previously the incentive may have been week given AE works just fine on Mac.

One important thing has apparently changed with CC licensing though. At one time you bought a perpetual Mac or Windows license. Mac AE users were fairly likely to stay put. Apple had no major reason to compete. Windows AE users always could chose to go Mac with Motion playing no part in that decision. Now CC licenses are cross platform. Every CC user on the Mac can very easily leave the Mac platform.The gateway to leaving the Mac is much easier.

Apple may now have incentive to make Motion an AE competitor to keep people on the Mac computer purchase path. Apple may want to have a mograph tool that locks people on to their platform. Is the incentive strong enough? Of course we don't know. I thought I'd point out the CC's cross platform licensing might be a threat Apple would respond to. Additionally they have to know that there's a group of unhappy Adobe users who are now looking at the viability of alternatives and Apple may want those eyeballs looking at or staying with Mac computer.


[Simon Ubsdell] "I know there's another developer that's also working on this and they have released a sort of alpha version, I think based on the sort of approach I was following."


3D Supercharger?
http://www.iloveqc.org/3d-supercharger



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 18, 2013 at 8:47:34 pm

[Craig Seeman] "[Simon Ubsdell] "I know there's another developer that's also working on this and they have released a sort of alpha version, I think based on the sort of approach I was following."


3D Supercharger?
http://www.iloveqc.org/3d-supercharger"


That's the one. Obviously pretty basic at this point but it's a decent enough proof of concept.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 18, 2013 at 9:15:24 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Apple may want to have a mograph tool that locks people on to their platform. Is the incentive strong enough? Of course we don't know. I thought I'd point out the CC's cross platform licensing might be a threat Apple would respond to. Additionally they have to know that there's a group of unhappy Adobe users who are now looking at the viability of alternatives and Apple may want those eyeballs looking at or staying with Mac computer."

But are THEY really locked on to their platform anymore? While what you say makes sense to me, it seems like it is a pittance to them. I think the internal argument there, is what their relationship to the desktop computer is, or should be.

I think people new to Motion will find a lot there that will pleasantly surprise them, and possibly, as Simon points out, 3rd party developers will bring a lot more; I just don't believe that this whole CC thing registers near high enough on Apple's "opportunity" scale to be of much interest to them.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 18, 2013 at 9:59:44 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I just don't believe that this whole CC thing registers near high enough on Apple's "opportunity" scale to be of much interest to them.
"


If FCPX is there to sell Macs, my guess is that if they see an avenue for Motion to do the same, they'll pursue it. None of this is high stakes or big R&D dollars to Apple. They can pursue Motion as well as they've developed FCPX and it would still be the change found under Cook's couch. Assuming they think it'll sell some MBPr. iMacs or, a few more of the upcoming MacPros, I think they'll throw a sixpence at it.

If they're making a new MacPro and they're still making other Macs, they're going to try to sell them otherwise they wouldn't bother being in that market.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 19, 2013 at 6:54:44 pm

[Craig Seeman] "If FCPX is there to sell Macs, my guess is that if they see an avenue for Motion to do the same, they'll pursue it. "

Undoubtedly. And Motion is already an extremely good mid-level compositor.

[Craig Seeman] "They can pursue Motion as well as they've developed FCPX and it would still be the change found under Cook's couch"

Well, yes. Exactly. Which is why I don't see them pursuing the more exotic, less-used tools available in the corners of AE. If X is any indication, they will keep it a broad, easy to access application, which will not suit a relatively smallish group of power-users.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 18, 2013 at 4:56:14 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "and so it came to pass - I own motion 5."

Not rent? :p


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 18, 2013 at 1:21:54 pm

Oh and can I just add that Patrick Sheffield's "How to Cheat in Motion" is a really interesting look at how you can push the limits of Motion:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Cheat-Motion-ebook/dp/B00AC1RCYO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=...

Although it references Motion 4, it's still worth a look - some very clever ideas in there and an entertaining read to boot!

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 18, 2013 at 7:33:24 pm

I haven't read the book, but Patrick is a terrific guy--very smart. I've spent a lot of time discussing NLEs on LinkedIn with him over the past few years.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 18, 2013 at 7:47:15 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I haven't read the book, but Patrick is a terrific guy--very smart. I've spent a lot of time discussing NLEs on LinkedIn with him over the past few years."

He does seem like a great guy - and some of the stories he tells in the book are a hoot! It's a really fun read and extremely ingenious.

Basically it's a whole string of practical follow-along tutorials (with some fascinating filler sections talking about his career in mograph and a bunch of other great info), and even if you don't actually need to do the specific things he describes, you get to pick up some really clever tips along the way. I thought I knew Motion reasonably thoroughly but I learned a whole lot I didn't know and never thought would be possible.

Well worth it!

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 20, 2013 at 5:59:22 pm

[Sandeep Sajeev] " I worked out Text Animations, linked them to Particle Emitters and Tracked the whole thing over a live action background"

Please make a tutorial.

Thanks!


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 19, 2013 at 7:47:21 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "
MOTION AND AE: Clearly a shoot-out between Motion and AE could have only one winner as things currently stand.

But then a shoot-out between AE and Nuke would be similarly one-sided if you were talking about high-end compositing."


Sounds like a pretty selective shootout... comparing AE to Nuke JUST for high end compositing.

[Simon Ubsdell] " This is the point where people rush in and point out that one or two notable mavericks have done some top end feature film work in AE, but this actually just proves a point I want to make:..."

I think it's misleading to paint AE as an outlier in high end VFX. It's been a mainstream tool in feature film for animation and effects for years. Yes, AE artists push the application to it's limits. But that's true of Maya, Nuke, Fusion, Body Paint, and every other tool used in the industry.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 19, 2013 at 10:16:52 am

[Shawn Miller] "I think it's misleading to paint AE as an outlier in high end VFX. It's been a mainstream tool in feature film for animation and effects for years."

OK, so maybe I overstated a bit - however, it would be equally inaccurate to portray AE is the pre-eminent compositor at the highest end. Surely? There are things that AE can't do that Nuke can breeze through - otherwise why are the top visual effects houses paying a premium for Nuke (and Fusion)?

There are very many tools that have become a smaller or larger component of the complex overall mix of feature film VFX. One of my favourites is Modo, which was used for onset visualisation on Avatar. But I wouldn't claim that Modo was a first choice 3D option at this level. It can do a helluva lot breathtakingly well, but it's not Maya yet by a very long shot.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 19, 2013 at 11:14:49 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "[Shawn Miller] "I think it's misleading to paint AE as an outlier in high end VFX. It's been a mainstream tool in feature film for animation and effects for years."
"


I should add that personally I would always choose a node based compositor over a nod based one - nodes give you far more power far more quickly and most of the VFX artists I have worked with seem to agree on this,

Fortunately Motion users have access to a node based workflow via the outstandingly well-thought out PixelConduit (as it is now known) with image processing of a very high order:

http://pixelconduit.com/

Highly recommended for anyone wanting to push the envelope with Motion.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 19, 2013 at 11:55:40 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "I would always choose a node based compositor over a nod based one"

Eurgh, sorry. Obviously that should read "I would always choose a node based compositor over a layer based one".

Shouldn't try to post while making lunch :(

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 19, 2013 at 12:24:08 pm

lunch. I want lunch. It means getting out of bed tho. like, some kind of really nice lunch, you know. warm chicken salad or something like that, potato salad, a big cup of tea. maybe a ginger snap - I don't have any of that. sigh.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 19, 2013 at 5:01:30 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "lunch. I want lunch."

Roast chicken, roast potatoes, glazed carrots, creamed leeks (a lot nicer than they sound!) ... but you're too late, we've eaten it all.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 19, 2013 at 4:30:40 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "[Shawn Miller] " it would be equally inaccurate to portray AE is the pre-eminent compositor at the highest end."

It would be... but who did that? I'll say it again, After Effect is a very flexible tool that's great for doing motion graphics work, and good for VFX tasks.

[Simon Ubsdell] " There are things that AE can't do that Nuke can breeze through - otherwise why are the top visual effects houses paying a premium for Nuke (and Fusion)?"

I don't think I've ever heard anyone suggest otherwise. So I'm not sure what your point is here.

[Simon Ubsdell] "There are very many tools that have become a smaller or larger component of the complex overall mix of feature film VFX. One of my favourites is Modo, which was used for onset visualisation on Avatar. But I wouldn't claim that Modo was a first choice 3D option at this level. It can do a helluva lot breathtakingly well, but it's not Maya yet by a very long shot."

Okay, I just want to make sure that I understand this comment in the context of the conversation. Are you basically saying that Motion may be less featured compared to AE today, but don't count it out because it can do breathtaking work? If that's what's you're saying (and please correct me if you're not), then I agree with you, and I haven't said anything contrary to that. My points have mostly been; a.) Motion is a specialized tool for motion graphics, and b.) Apple doesn't seem interested in making it more than that. Am I missing something?

Shawn



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 19, 2013 at 4:59:53 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Okay, I just want to make sure that I understand this comment in the context of the conversation. Are you basically saying that Motion may be less featured compared to AE today, but don't count it out because it can do breathtaking work? If that's what's you're saying (and please correct me if you're not), then I agree with you, and I haven't said anything contrary to that. My points have mostly been; a.) Motion is a specialized tool for motion graphics, and b.) Apple doesn't seem interested in making it more than that. Am I missing something?"

Sorry, we obviously don't disagree at all - my misreading of your comments.

I possibly don't understand what you mean by your last comment though. You seem to be implying that Motion has no claim to being a compositor in any sense, inasmuch as it is merely (?) "a specialized tool for motion graphics, and ... Apple doesn't seem interested in making it more than that."

Probably me getting the wrong end of the stick again but if that's what you are implying I think I would have to take issue. As I have said, on its own it is capable of reasonably complex compositing work and with third party support (e.g, from Mocha and Conduit, etc.) it's capable of even more.

I also wonder whether it's premature to judge what Apple may or may not be interested in. Certainly before the release of FCP X and Motion 5 it would have been reasonable to conclude that Apple had no interest in taking Motion any further than its state at the time. I think, given the huge importance that Motion now has within the FCP X ecosystem, it's more than possible that it might go places that we can't necessarily imagine from this vantage point ...

But then I'm possibly starting to sound like Craig Seeman ... not that that's in any way a bad thing ;-)

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 19, 2013 at 6:29:36 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I possibly don't understand what you mean by your last comment though. You seem to be implying that Motion has no claim to being a compositor in any sense, inasmuch as it is merely (?) "a specialized tool for motion graphics, and ... Apple doesn't seem interested in making it more than that.""

Nope, I'm not saying that Motion isn't capable of compositing in any sense. I'm saying that I don't think Apple is interested it making it a serious alternative to AE.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/motion/

This is a tool which is clearly aimed at editors. Moreover, the emphasis seems to be on making motion graphics easy for editors. Again, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, or that Motion isn't powerful,
just that from v1, that direction hasn't changed.

Lastly, I'm not trying to engage in an AE vs Motion pissing contest. I think those things are pointless. The real conversation seems to be centered around the question of whether or not Motion is a good replacement for AE. My thought is that for most Mac based editors and some motion graphics artists, it probably is. For a large portion of motion graphics and VFX artists, probably not.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question
on May 19, 2013 at 6:44:01 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Lastly, I'm not trying to engage in an AE vs Motion pissing contest. I think those things are pointless."

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more! Not remotely what I was interested in doing ...

[Shawn Miller] "The real conversation seems to be centered around the question of whether or not Motion is a good replacement for AE. My thought is that for most Mac based editors and some motion graphics artists, it probably is. For a large portion of motion graphics and VFX artists, probably not.
"


I think that's spot on.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 18, 2013 at 10:59:04 am

[Shawn Miller] "it just doesn't seem like Motion's focus is complexity (i.e. layer heavy compositions and scripting"

AE is definitely stronger as a compositor as it currently stands though not nearly as much as a lot of people seem to believe.

It's perfectly possible to do "layer-heavy" comps in Motion.

In fact, there are some ways in which Motion's group-based architecture wins out over AE and Clones are a very powerful feature. It's sometimes possible to achieve more complex processes more simply than in AE - though of course not always.

Certainly the absence of scripting is one of the big holes that needs filling, though I doubt there's any fundamental reason why this can't be implemented, if Apple see that there's enough call for it. (The Motion guys are seriously clever!)

I would say that users who think Motion is unsophisticated compared to AE haven't really looked at all the possibilities that the Link Behavior offers - OK, it's not up to competing with expressions, but you can create some extremely complex relational effects if you really push it. And combining Behaviors and keyframing can get you some mind-boggling results almost unimaginable in AE. You do have to dig in a bit to get this stuff working though.

I think it's a mistake to judge Motion's complexity on the basis of its surface simplicity, especially as Apple's main aim is to make it as accessible as possible to its primary audience.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 19, 2013 at 8:59:59 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "AE is definitely stronger as a compositor as it currently stands though not nearly as much as a lot of people seem to believe."

I don't follow, where do you see the disconnect? Is AE only 10% better for compositing, where you think people perceive it to be 50% better?

[Simon Ubsdell] "
It's perfectly possible to do "layer-heavy" comps in Motion."


I average 60 to 75 layers for a VFX comp. Sometimes it gets up to 120 or so. I've seen other AE artists work with 600 and 700 layer comps. What's a heavy comp in Motion?

[Simon Ubsdell] "In fact, there are some ways in which Motion's group-based architecture wins out over AE and Clones.."

How so?

[Simon Ubsdell] "...And combining Behaviors and keyframing can get you some mind-boggling results almost unimaginable in AE. "

Like what? What can you do by combining behaviors and keyframing that you can't do with expressions and keyframing in AE?

[Simon Ubsdell] "
I think it's a mistake to judge Motion's complexity on the basis of its surface simplicity, especially as Apple's main aim is to make it as accessible as possible to its primary audience."


I'm not judging Motion on it's surface simplicity. I'm judging it by it's lack of flexibility. Other than Motion, I can't think of another compositing or animation application that doesn't have a scripting engine. I'm sure that behaviors are powerful and that they offer a lot of capability, but if you can't alter them or write your own, then you are limited to what those behaviors offer.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 19, 2013 at 10:35:29 am

Hi Shawn

i think you are wanting to hold a different discussion to the one I started. I hoped I had made it clear that I was talking about the value of Motion for the broad middle of the Video Editor spectrum where I suspect 700 layer comps are not that common!

I absolutely agree that AE is currently a significantly superior tool and obviously the first choice option for the mograph professional - I wouldn't expect Motion to compete at this level at all. Maybe in time, but probably never.

[Shawn Miller] "I don't follow, where do you see the disconnect? Is AE only 10% better for compositing, where you think people perceive it to be 50% better?"

It's maybe 50-70% better, but the general perception is that's it's 100% better! There is broad perception that Motion is barely a compositing tool at all.

[Shawn Miller] "I average 60 to 75 layers for a VFX comp. Sometimes it gets up to 120 or so. I've seen other AE artists work with 600 and 700 layer comps. What's a heavy comp in Motion?"

Again a question of degree. I wouldn't attempt a 700 layer comp in Motion but 60-67 layers is not at all out of the question. Motion's architecture however, especially the availability of Clone layers and more particularly Clone groups means that you can sometimes achieve more complex results with fewer layers ... Sometimes, not always.

[Shawn Miller] "How so?"

Tricky to explain without going into lots of detail of you're not already familiar with how Clones work.

[Shawn Miller] "Like what? What can you do by combining behaviors and keyframing that you can't do with expressions and keyframing in AE?"

If you consider that every parameter of any Behavior can be affected by another Behavior and then that second Behaviors parameters can also all be affected by further Behaviors, ad infinitum, you can begin to get an idea of just how much complexity you can achieve with Motion. Given that you can, alternatively or in addition, add keyframes to any parameter of any Behavior, I think it's true to say the the potential complexity is truly mind-boggling.

In addition the Link Behavior can work in a way that starts to mimic expressions to a reasonable degree, especially if you start to play with and potentially animate the Custom Mix, Scale and Offset values. I've been amazed at the complexity I have been able to achieve by this means.

Again I probably overstated in claiming that there are things that AE can't do that Motion can, but it's definitely true to say that you can very quickly achieve levels of complexity in Motion that would be significantly more cumbersome to achieve - and more importantly tweak - in AE.

[Shawn Miller] "Other than Motion, I can't think of another compositing or animation application that doesn't have a scripting engine."

Absolutely. Motion needs a scripting engine as I admitted in my original post. I could be wrong but I think it would be relatively trivial for Apple to implement this if they felt it was what users wanted - I very much doubt they have had enough feedback on this for them to warrant doing so.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 19, 2013 at 5:20:51 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "i think you are wanting to hold a different discussion to the one I started."

Hi Simon, I'm just responding to some of your comments, as I think you're overstating some things to make your points.

[Simon Ubsdell] "[Shawn Miller] "I average 60 to 75 layers for a VFX comp. Sometimes it gets up to 120 or so. I've seen other AE artists work with 600 and 700 layer comps. What's a heavy comp in Motion?"

Again a question of degree. I wouldn't attempt a 700 layer comp in Motion but 60-67 layers is not at all out of the question. Motion's architecture however, especially the availability of Clone layers and more particularly Clone groups means that you can sometimes achieve more complex results with fewer layers ... Sometimes, not always."


So... my original comment was that Motion isn't designed for layer heavy comps. Was I wrong?

[Simon Ubsdell] "[Shawn Miller] "How so?"

Tricky to explain without going into lots of detail of you're not already familiar with how Clones work."


Are clones just reference objects that point to parent objects, which give you the ability to make changes to a large number of objects by changing the parent? If so, yes, I'm familiar with the concept. I use cloned objects in Cinema 4d quite a bit. In After Effects, Pre-comping serves the same purpose.

[Simon Ubsdell] "If you consider that every parameter of any Behavior can be affected by another Behavior and then that second Behaviors parameters can also all be affected by further Behaviors, ad infinitum, you can begin to get an idea of just how much complexity you can achieve with Motion. Given that you can, alternatively or in addition, add keyframes to any parameter of any Behavior, I think it's true to say the the potential complexity is truly mind-boggling."

So, how is this different than using expressions?


Shawn



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Motion as a compositor
on May 19, 2013 at 6:21:53 pm

[Shawn Miller] "So... my original comment was that Motion isn't designed for layer heavy comps. Was I wrong? "

That's sort of a loaded question but I'll try to answer it anyway!

I can't speak for what Apple had in mind when they conceived it - and you're probably not wrong that they didn't necessarily sit down to make a tool that was primarily designed to cope with heavy duty compositing. Again, I'm not sure the AE was originally designed with this in mind either - but that hasn't stopped it being used that way!

There is no fundamental reason that I can think of that makes Motion inherently unsuitable for layer heavy comps - though how heavy we're talking about would I think really depend on the processes you need for the particular job in hand and the "weight" of each individual layer or group whether in terms of source media or processes applied, but then that's true of any system.

You might for example need fewer layers to achieve the same result in Motion as against AE, or you might not. You never necessarily know where something is going to bog down in general terms - it's much more about the specifics of the cumulative operations.

In order to answer this question properly one would probably need to compare two specific projects side by side. There is of course no doubt that AE would be the superior option in most if not all cases, I fully accept that and it would be completely wrong to try and argue otherwise, but that doesn't mean that Motion wouldn't be able to compete to what I believe is a reasonable degree.

Here though I have to confess that if I have heavy duty compositing to do I'll usually head over to Shake (still great after all these years of obsolescence - I'd go for Nuke if I could justify the price but I don't do enough VFX work these days, sadly), even though I could just as easily do a most of it in Motion or of course AE. On the other hand if there's text involved in the comp at any point I would probably choose Motion first over anything else. I'm a big fan of Motion, but I'm not, all appearances to the contrary, a complete fanatic ;-)

[Shawn Miller] "Are clones just reference objects that point to parent objects, which give you the ability to make changes to a large number of objects by changing the parent? If so, yes, I'm familiar with the concept. I use cloned objects in Cinema 4d quite a bit. In After Effects, Pre-comping serves the same purpose. "

Motion Clones are children not parents but otherwise you're right. AE pre-comps are to some extent very similar in practice despite being very dissimilar in design.

Here's an interesting comment from Walter Soyka on this subject:

Say, for example, you've generated a procedural matte that you want to use multiple times in the same project and why Clones could be said to simulate the advantages of a node based system:

Nodal compositors excel at reuse of a single element (by piping its output to the inputs of multiple other nodes). Layer-based compositors cannot do this; you have to either duplicate the layer (and maintain any manipulations on both copies) or pre-compose (which, without intelligent render management, incurs processing and memory penalties).

Clone layers [link] let you re-use a layer in other places in the compositing stack, similar to how nodal compositing lets you send multiple outputs from a single node.


http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/27035

[Shawn Miller] "[Simon Ubsdell] "If you consider that every parameter of any Behavior can be affected by another Behavior and then that second Behaviors parameters can also all be affected by further Behaviors, ad infinitum, you can begin to get an idea of just how much complexity you can achieve with Motion. Given that you can, alternatively or in addition, add keyframes to any parameter of any Behavior, I think it's true to say the the potential complexity is truly mind-boggling."

So, how is this different than using expressions?"


Effectively it's somewhat similar - but in practice the range of "operators" is necessarily far more limited. There's really no substitute for proper expressions if you need complex logical operations, but the Motion system can get you a long way in a lot of situations, far more than seems apparent at first glance.

That's the downside, but the upside is that Behaviors and Behavior relationships are usually much faster to fine tune than if you'd set up comparable operations with expressions. In Motion you can find yourself a lot of the time fine-tuning even extremely complex operations "on the fly" in Motion in a way that you'd be more unlikely to do in AE - and that does represent a significant time-saving and contributes to greater creative "flow", at least in my book.

All of which is to say, that, yes, Motion is not in the same league as AE and possibly never will be, but to dismiss it as merely a lowly mograph tool - which is where I think it has long been pigeon-holed - is doing it an injustice.

And to put this back in perspective, which is whether or not Motion is a useful compositing tool for the majority of Video Editors who will never need to attempt 700 layer comps or anything of the kind, then I think it's safe to say that is has more than enough going for it.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Motion as a compositor
on May 19, 2013 at 7:09:17 pm

"[Simon Ubsdell] " [Shawn Miller] "Are clones just reference objects that point to parent objects, which give you the ability to make changes to a large number of objects by changing the parent? If so, yes, I'm familiar with the concept. I use cloned objects in Cinema 4d quite a bit. In After Effects, Pre-comping serves the same purpose. "

Motion Clones are children not parents but otherwise you're right."


Didn't I say that..? :-)

[Simon Ubsdell] "Here's an interesting comment from Walter Soyka on this subject:..."

Yes, all true. Seems like the real difference in practice is that pre-comping incurs a penalty during rendering. I think that's different from implying that AE doesn't have the same functionality.

[Simon Ubsdell] "but to dismiss it as merely a lowly mograph tool - which is where I think it has long been pigeon-holed - is doing it an injustice."

Maybe that's where the disconnect is. I haven't dismissed Motion as a lowly anything. In fact, I think I've said that it is "powerful" in almost every post in this thread. I get that you love Motion, and that you use it for compositing as well as motion graphics... fair enough. I just don't think you need to downplay After Effects to make your points.

[Simon Ubsdell] "And to put this back in perspective, which is whether or not Motion is a useful compositing tool for the majority of Video Editors who will never need to attempt 700 layer comps or anything of the kind, then I think it's safe to say that is has more than enough going for it."

I don't think we disagree all that much. Please see my other comments on the subject.

[Shawn Miller] "Lastly, I'm not trying to engage in an AE vs Motion pissing contest. I think those things are pointless. The real conversation seems to be centered around the question of whether or not Motion is a good replacement for AE. My thought is that for most Mac based editors and some motion graphics artists, it probably is. For a large portion of motion graphics and VFX artists, probably not."

Shawn



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Motion as a compositor
on May 19, 2013 at 7:41:22 pm

[Shawn Miller] "I get that you love Motion, and that you use it for compositing as well as motion graphics... fair enough. I just don't think you need to downplay After Effects to make your points. "

I really don't think that I have in anyway attempted to tarnish the lustre of AE in any of my comments, but please accept my apologies if it appears that I have done so.

Just for the record then, and to put an end to all this back and forth, let me say that After Effects is a magnificent tool that is probably untouchable in its sphere of excellence for any foreseeable future.

I don't "love" Motion - I really enjoy using it and I wanted to share some of that enthusiasm with others.

And of course I enjoy using AE just as much - who wouldn't?

Thanks for the conversation.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Motion as a compositor
on May 19, 2013 at 8:21:48 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I don't "love" Motion - I really enjoy using it and I wanted to share some of that enthusiasm with others."

Looking back, I think my comment may have been too harsh. I apologize, I didn't mean to come off that way. I think Motion is great, and I don't blame you for wanting to share your enthusiasm about it. I do truly and honestly look forward to seeing the cool thing that people do with it.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 20, 2013 at 6:14:21 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Motion needs a scripting engine as I admitted in my original post. "

I sent to apple that I want the scripting engine to be like Automator.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users
on May 18, 2013 at 4:57:34 pm

[David Lawrence] "One weekend Pixelmator sales = the total Creative Cloud user base after a year. Food for thought."

The dessert for that food is all this talk about it on here was the sole reason I plunked down MY $15.


Return to posts index

Brandon Cordy
Re: Message from corel to adobe users
on May 17, 2013 at 7:32:34 pm

I wouldn't mind other professional graphics applications to choose from, but I used CorelDRAW for years (and people complain about Adobe's suite being "bloated"), and I never got to use a version that didn't crash habitually.

It got to the point where I installed a Windows utility that caught crashing software before it crashed. Hopefully transitioning to 64-bit allowed them to take on those long-standing bugs.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Message from corel to adobe users
on May 18, 2013 at 1:16:01 pm

It's still easier to get an edited piece or selects in to Ae from fcpx (or anywhere) than it is in Motion despite FCPXML being a formidable outlier of interchange.

That's my biggest hang up with Motion, along with crashing, although in my limited experience, v5 seems to be a bit better about not crashing.

I didn't adopt Motion because every time I try and push a bit, it would fold.

You are making a strong case to take a better look, though, Simon.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Message from corel to adobe users
on May 18, 2013 at 1:29:12 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's still easier to get an edited piece or selects in to Ae from fcpx (or anywhere) than it is in Motion despite FCPXML being a formidable outlier of interchange.

That's my biggest hang up with Motion, along with crashing, although in my limited experience, v5 seems to be a bit better about not crashing.

I didn't adopt Motion because every time I try and push a bit, it would fold. "


It would certainly be great to see some form of interchange - Motion 5 has become rather more of an island than before which is unfortunate. But hey, you know what I'm going to say - use the feedback request form ;-)

Personally I have found Motion 5 to be mostly extremely stable, certainly no worse than AE at any rate. Obviously you need plenty of RAM and a decent graphics card and there are a couple of minor things I now know not to do, like trying to edit text when in Glyph edit mode for example.

I do think it's now probably more stable than Motion 4 was so maybe it's worth having another look. Frankly for someone who likes FCP X as much as you do it's really a no-brainer - if only for the publishing thing. I know John Davidson is a big fan for this reason as he's often mentioned - if you're running an FCP X only shop it's going to have major advantages that nothing else can currently match.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Message from corel to adobe users
on May 18, 2013 at 1:54:57 pm

I think that all the features of all of the packages discussed here boil down to one simple tenet - Talent not included. You can do some insanely beautiful work in the simplest package, and some godawful work in the most complex package. It's not as much the feature set - it's how you use it...

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Message from corel to adobe users
on May 18, 2013 at 2:58:21 pm

The publishing is extremely cool, yes. It does take a bit of work, though, to get it setup in a shared environment, and moving templates to other places can be somewhat of a hassle due to the location of the template storage.

Remember when Ae could import Motion Projects?

We need something like that back again.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Message from corel to adobe users
on May 18, 2013 at 3:04:35 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "The publishing is extremely cool, yes. It does take a bit of work, though, to get it setup in a shared environment, and moving templates to other places can be somewhat of a hassle due to the location of the template storage."

Just in case you don't know about it, can I recommend Andreas Kiel's outstanding Motion Template Tool?

http://www.spherico.com/filmtools/

There's a load of helpful functionality in there for multiple users - and Andreas is such a great guy I'm sure he could find a solution to your problem if it's not already implemented there.

Just a thought anyway.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Message from corel to adobe users
on May 18, 2013 at 3:09:48 pm

Yes, Andreas is awesome and so are the tools he creates.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

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