Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

About lin2log

Recent Profile Visitors

1,141 profile views

lin2log's Achievements


Member (2/5)



  1. You might try to not lump compositors in with people that just plain need a really nice and fast lower third​ or graphic animation for their every day editing tasks. There are far more of those than there are some high-end compositors! The ones not in need of fitting a CG dinosaur into a meadow with exploding meteorites and 5000 ogres attacking. That's not what Motion is or ever was meant for no. Go to AE, Nuke, Fusion or whatever for that, by all means! What Motion does it does superbly and (given the right minimum hardware) in realtime. Not exactly something AE or the others can boast about. It's actually rather pathetic imho... https://vimeo.com/69563518 ... and that's an old video and also the perfect reason NOT to use them for that kind of thing and why Motion is in fact a much better choice in that case, yes! Obviously, especially in the context of FCP X. Its integration is FAR deeper in FCP than AE is in PPro, too. No. No one. At least not people like the Wall Street Journal http://on.wsj.com/1wN5ZoE or even USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/videos/sports/2015/01/20/22056111/ (just one of MANY of theirs that I could find off the bat) Just like no "real professional" uses FCP X. Aside from obviously not being any shame in that, if it saves you time... do you mean like AE, C4D and various other users do, too?? How is that in any way unique to Motion? You realise of course, that there are exponentially more sites offering templates for AE and others, rather than for Motion, right? And if someone ain't doing it themselves in AE, then they sure as hell ain't doing it in Motion either... as well as the other way around. If they are, they'll continue to do so with Motion. Huh? As opposed to which "exotic" appearance in AE? ​Roto brush. Yeah, there's something people need aaaaaaaall the time. Never mind Motion's b-splines and various other tools that AE doesn't have. And get TrackX and you have a mocha tracker built in or send data over from mocha Pro! (Motion's own sucks, sorry) But yeah, as you point out perfectly, those are highly specialised areas and tasks that I'll guarantee you not even 90+% of AE users EVER need. And how exactly is there no 3D compositing in Motion?? Why would you do that? To reapply it in Resolve? And simply leaving them on is bad because...? You realise of course, that any and all color changes you have applied in FCP X, including (built-in) LUTs, are carried over to Resolve via XML, no?
  2. Well, thank you for an additional display of your lack of knowledge of FCP X. Thank you. And for the record: I couldn't care any less which NLE you choose to use, nor am I in the business of selling anyone anything, let alone FCP, so I'd have absolutely ZERO advantage or disadvantage to you using FCP or anything else. This is about making nonsensical claims about something one knows little to nothing about, but having the hubris to present them as fact. Nothing else. So there's no need for you to justify your choices to me, they're irrelevant. Oh, and you might want to get that shift-key checked. Oh, right. Therefore one should be talking about the current version based on mere fiddling-knowledge of it, as it was four years ago. Makes total sense to me! Be sure not to let that stop you from engaging in conversations about it and telling everyone how useless it is, what's missing, yadda yadda yadda nonetheless though! That'd be silly. Wow. That's cool! Sounds oddly exactly like... working with Motion and Photoshop in FCP X! Weird. Of course you know everything about Motion, too, to know that it couldn't possibly do any if not everything you do in AE if you were to switch, no doubt. And never mind that Motion is exponentially faster than AE (I think it's called realtime or something) when working... but that apparently doesn't pose an amazing time-savings to you. Having to render everything in your NLE to get any sort of realtime instead makes much more sense. Agreed. And... HUH??... how is FCP "layered" any differently than PPro??! Oh, no worries. I've grasped the fact that you don't want to like FCP X no matter what, even if it's just due to mere lack of any real knowledge of it, yes. To think someone might actually want to learn the software he's using (let alone talking about) first is just ludicrous, I know. Putting it off with (surely utterly detrimental!) "things" you don't like (or just plain don't get) without actually being specific (since that could get embarrassing) is the far easier route. I know. *faceplam*... no comment. Hmmmm.... then... don't?! Simply stick with what you (claim to) know! Wow. Problem solved. Just maybe do yourself the simple favour of not talking about things you know little to nothing about. You could be mistaken for a troll just trying to justify his (apparently insecure?) decisions by trash-talking those of others. Case in point, thank you! Spoiler: wrong. It has various built-in LUTs and does native log processing, or can use a simple plugin if something is missing or you want to use your own. Oops. Uuuuuuummmmmrrmm.... yeah.... SO?! I guess the 29 bucks for LUT Utility are somehow a complete no-go or something? In which case I'd say you have much bigger problems than just your choice of NLE...
  3. ​Premiere (still!) does not use OpenCL 2.0. Funny, I thought I had made that point pretty clear. But thank you for making my point.
  4. Then you're clearly testing with OpenCL 1.x or old drivers or something. Because OpenCL will in fact smoke CUDA any day, assuming both hard and software are optimised accordingly. Also the reason why FCP X smokes Premiere in terms of speed in pretty much all areas (as this article only confirms), especially on a new Mac Pro, where Premiere isn't even able to utilise BOTH GPUs! Thanks to OpenCL 2.0 FCP X can and does. And even if they're using old hardware, this certainly shows there's something wrong with your testing: ​http://www.fireprographics.com/ws/mae/adobe/index.asp FCP X is most certainly not using that proprietary nonsense, no. Good thing, too, because I for one prefer open standards that aren't tied to specific hardware but work equally well no matter the hardware, thanks. Try 4K, full-res with 3-4 filters on it and play that back without rendering on both FCP and PPro on a Mac Pro and you'll see what fast is. But not in PPro and no thanks to CUDA. Or how about a 16 angle multicam in 4K and realtime? Love to see that on PPro... ​
  5. And you probably think that somehow speaks for you? ​ Spoiler: it doesn't. Talk about hurting ones case. And who even said that I use FCP X?? But then I made a point of specifying that that goes for an american keyboard layout only. And for the record: that german shortcut is useless, since it will activate, but not deactivate the function. You'd be well advised to change it to just the ^ key or some other single key i.e. a key without a modifier. Full fail on Apple's localisation team's part.
  6. ​ And you probably think that somehow speaks for you? Spoiler: it doesn't, it just makes you appear to be a populistic, unstable and erratic driven tool. Talk about hurting ones case. But then I made a point of specifying that that goes for an american keyboard layout only. And for the record: that german shortcut is useless, since it will activate, but not deactivate the function. You'd be well advised to change it to just the ^ key or some other single key i.e. a key without a modifier. Full fail on Apple's localisation team's part.
  7. Because FCP X (as does Motion) utilises OpenCL 2.0, which in fact is very much dependant upon the GPU and uses it/them extensively, so I don't know how you could come to the conclusion that it's of "limited benefit". In the context of FCP that's (clearly) nonsense. Of course it also depends on the codec your encoding with/to, since individual codecs' milage may vary. E.g. encoding an H.264 with "Better Quality" will be exponentially faster on a Mac Pro with its dual GPUs, which OpenCL will use both of, than any other Mac. ProRes not as much. ​
  8. You think wrong. That's nonsense. It was there from the beginning since it in fact makes certain editing tasks easier with less clicking. But most certainly NOT for the sake of catering to the "old way" of editing because of inflexible whiners. If you need to (temporarily at best) break connections when dragging something (e.g. slipping a clip that has a connected clip), that's what the tilde (~) key is for! (that's assuming you're using the standard layout AND an american keyboard... otherwise check the Command Editor) If anything, then the "Event Viewer" was added for the whiners. Something I find completely useless 99.999% of the time. Which is probably why it's not open by default and (fortunately) can be hidden. That on the other hand is at least partially true (the last part). And anyone who is actually using the Position Tool all the time, clearly doesn't have the slightest grasp on the most basic concept of FCP X and needs to be using something else. For whatever reason they aren't anyway, if it's such a chore for them to admit that they maybe don't know better. Don't want to get it or it's beneath you to learn? Don't use it. Guess what. Apple actually had a lot of (brilliant) reasons for doing what they did. Adapt or simply stay in your comfort zone. But the Position Tool is far from useless outside of that nonsensical (mis)use of it. ​Excuse me? That's the primary point of the magnetic timeline! And most certainly it's biggest advantage by far. After working with it for over three years, no logic on this planet can explain to me why it wasn't this way since the 80's when I started. It seems so logical and obvious that it would. Funny how perceptions can change... if someone has the maracas to rethink matters.
  9. No. Simply clicking it (without dragging) selects it. They you hit the appropriate keyboard shortcut Q, W or E (or even D) to edit it into the timeline. Dragging to the timeline is the most inefficient, imprecise and noobie thing to do imho. Always has been, regardless of which NLE.
  10. ​Sorry dude, but that makes no sense and quite honestly shows how little you know about the very basics of FCP X. Because IF you in fact "threw in a song" as the first thing, then it would be in the primary. Therefore the subsequent clips you are editing to the music would be connected clips. THAT in turn would mean that there would not be any "gap filling" or even anything "magnetic" going on with your clips. That would only apply to the music. Unless of course you put all the connected clips into a secondary storyline. In which case... don't and all's good! In fact the way you describe you're doing it is exactly the way you want to be doing it, if in fact the music is your primary (there's that word again... get it??) focus. Huh? Then DELETE it?? Or simply pull the clip UNDER the primary if you still want the audio?? Ironically, as far as that's concerned, it's the exact same as with Premiere or whatever. Actually, no. It would actually be a BIGGER pain to do in Premiere, since you obviously have to make room for the clip you're moving first! Therefore it would take far more clicking and dragging to do the same thing than it does with X! Not knowing how doesn't mean you can't. Therefore your niggles make no sense in the context of how things are actually done. I'd say you're so enamoured with your way of thinking, that you can't think of the most obvious? My tip: actually learn the basics before you sit down in front of it? Something any reasonable person would do with any software? The whole "I've been doing it one way forever, so anything that does it any differently can't possibly be good or better"-approach isn't going to get you anywhere. With any software, let alone FCP X. To actually be the judge of good/bad, better/worse you actually have to know what you're doing and understand the most basic concepts first, no? Again: because you don't know what you're doing, sorry. Not because it actually does take longer... because it doesn't. It's faster, as I described. Oh the irony... EXACTLY! And that is exactly the point where FCP X shines above all else, believe it or not. Therefore X is made just for you. Simple: if that of all things isn't in fact exponentially faster for you, you're doing it wrong. Anyone that's experienced in working with X will easily be able to prove that to you. If you don't want to learn it and understand the concept/idea behind it first, you're best off simply not using it. Especially if you're so convinced that track-based editing is da ultimate shizz, I don't even get why you're bothering with X to begin with. Stick with what you've got and be happy and save yourself all the frustration and misconceptions! Seems logical.
  • Create New...