After creating a compound clip, i double click or press "open in timeline" to open it. I apply an effect to some clips. Got the orange bar, so I render. Works OK. But when I return to the main structure of the compound clip, it shows the orange bar again, forcing me to render twice the same effects.
What I'm doing wrong?
A little tedious because usually I want to check and change things while inside the compound clip. So if i do what you suggest I need to go back to the main view, render, then open the compound clip again. With some effects, this is not a problem because they play smoothly even with the orange bar, but for the ones I use most (like Finisher or Tonegrade from crumple pop) the affected clips play jerky, so i need to render.
I just done a test, if I render inside a compound clip, then go to the timeline the render passes through.
But if I have a compound clip that is connected to the primary storyline, with part alpha to show what's bellow, then it needs rendered again. This is because what is now seen on screen is different to the render file it would be looking to from inside the compound.
Have you got a compound clip that that is totally opaque, or a similar situation to me? and are you on the latest version of FCPX?
Even creating a new project and grouping just two clips gives me this behavior,
I'm using 10.0.6 version; pretty nice if this is fixed in 10.0.7
I didn´t update yet because 10.0.7 seems to broke some plugins and some people is reporting performance issues, and i was happy with my version.
Its not fixed in 10.0.7 and it was niggling at me, I just done another test. The reason I asked if you were on the latest version of FCPX was curiosity relating to the new compound clip behaviour introduced in 10.0.6.
The last test was on an old project made with an older version prior to the compound clip behaviour updates, the compound clip was made on the timeline so doesn't have an event reference clip. That render passed through as desired.
I made a compound clip in a new project, so with the new clip behaviour, and with no alpha. The render doesn't pass through for me either any more. I'm wondering if there's some complication relating to it now going to the event for possible use in multiple timelines.
I'm gong to put this in as a bug report.
But first, if anyone is still running an FCPX version prior to 10.0.6 can they do a test and see if there's a difference between compound clips created in the event and ones created on the timeline. The issue may always have been there for the event created clips.
That's correct. In fact i didn't buy tonalizer pro because the trial one and the free version were giving me rendering issues. But i read in apple's support communities that some others like splitscreen are broken after 10.0.7
I just got a bit of time to go through some old events and found one with a couple of compound clips that were created in the event browser.
These were probably created in 10.0.4 or 10.0.5, but definitely prior to 10.0.6. I just tested them in 10.0.7. The render file created when stepped into the compound clip doesn't pass through in the way it did with the compound clip that was created on the timeline, prior to 10.0.6.
My best guess is that when we lost the ability to make a compound clip without creating an event reference we lost the ability for the render to pass through. It is possible that the event created compounds did pass through in earlier versions, but I'd recon it could be more related to the separate event and project databases.
If that's the case I'm not so sure it's fixable and would love to see the option to get the old way back. While I could definitely see the uses, I had a strange wee feeling I'd miss it when talk started of the persistent event reference way back.
Just a little confirmation after I realised how easy this would be to test.
I created a new event and a new project. Imported a couple of clips to the event, added them to the project timeline and created a compound clip from them.
Right enough, when I opened the compound clip in its own timeline and rendered, it created an event render file. It was opening the event reference after all. So then when I went back to the project, the project was looking to the project render files and didn't see anything, so needed rendered again.
When it was rendered again, in the project timeline, it created a project render file.
To fix this Apple would need to make some sort of special event reference relationship for compound clips in the project database. It could get messy I'd imagine if the compound clip contains alpha data or if any adjustments/effects etc. are applied to it in the project timeline afterwards. That's even if its possible or not. I have no idea.
Does not seem a big problem to fix, maybe when you tell the compound clip to "Reference new parent clip" it could also start looking in project renders rather than event project ones.
But i would love to see this functionality back, I have some complex projects with three or four levels of CCs and it's very time consuming to edit this way.
Maybe others are not using CC too much? Or I missing something?
The problem, now that were restricted to compound clips being an "event" only thing, is the second we go inside the compound we leave the project for the event, when we go back we leave the event to return to the project. Even if referencing a new parent clip that new parent is still in the same event as the old parent.
But who knows it sounds complex and messy to me, but maybe the developer guys see it different and maybe it is possible, or even simple.
I hadn't noticed this problem before you mentioned it as I haven't used them since the 10.0.6 update, but I do use them a lot too. I don't use them to section up an edit like some have found useful, I use them as speciality clips that may contain a composite of graphics and or video. This is why the problem you found is a big issue for me too.
If the developer guys can work it out great, if it's not so straight forward I'd be happy with the option to create compound clips (in the timeline) with the option of either the old or the new way. That would work for me as I found that for what I do the way we can't do them now was more often useful, I never really needed them in the event most of the time.
Just wanted to say, that 9 years later I'm having the same issue.
Sometimes a Compound Clip is just too heavy to work with so would rather render it inside itself and then just work with it outside, do transitions and whatnot as if it was a normal flat media clip (so ultra smooth), however rendering inside the compound clip and coming back up on the hierarchy will still force it to render once again.
Yes! You are 100% correct, it is indeed compositing heavy-ish work at times.
I’m still trying to find ways to be out of After Effects where possible (I still use it and like it nevertheless but lately ONLY when needed) and it’s not quite clear yet to me. I’ll drop here a few points, maybe some advice or someone can chime in or maybe I should just open a new thread since it’s a big-ish one:
1. Some Title plugins use extra “sub-plugins” or sub-programs that don’t allow them to be opened in Apple Motion properly, they will mostly crash when trying to re-publish them. For example, FreezeFrames from MotionVFX uses some masks tools published to FCP not normally available anywhere else. They are often great looking but also heavy in nature at times too. In this case I feel a bit stuck to FCP, for now at least.
2. What’s the best way to handle FCP <-> Motion workflows? It’s still not quite clear to me how to ‘publish’ a Motion project to a single FCP project. The idea was to have a “motion clip” inside an FCP timeline, treat it like a normal clip and any changes to the insides of it would be done by right clicking on it, open in Motion, edit, save, go back to FCP. The closest seems to be saving as a generator with some of the time independent configurations (but tends to pollute the titles/generator browser but adds the benefit of publishing parameters) or rendering directly to a clip. What would be a good rule of thumb here?
I still have to take a proper look at the “Send To Motion” plugin and check the options for motion files in a library (on my side if I select in the Title’s browser to show any single library’s titles it still shows all Installed Effects).
3. This one is potentially me not finding the right menu button: how to have “compound clips” inside Apple Motion? I’m enjoying big time doodling at times with FCP and Motion, especially because once the few drawbacks or rough corners are understood, the performance and potential speed is to me unparalleled... but this one is bogging me, I can spend sometime doing something in Motion for what would be “a great background” to use it inside another composition (where playback speed, transforms, etc can be further edited only on the top-most composition), however I don’t know what to do, groups seem to be the closest to that but retiming and cutting (just like Compound Clips in FCP) becomes a hassle.
So, are these Compound Clip pre-render “issues”, the Compound Clip equivalent for Motion (After Effects calls them Pre-Comps) or a “proper” Proxy support (creating a proxy in other softwares completely substitutes that Pre-Comp for a pre-rendered version for speed/editing purposes) just something not meant for the way I’m trying to use it? Or maybe it’s just a few feedbacks to Apple away (if it sounds reasonable)? Does the community happens to hit similar obstacles (besides this thread’s pre-render one)?
Will do, thanks for the suggestion. Got a few of them in queue already. Nothing that seems to tackle what I was referring to yet, but will check them out to get more insight.
For example, Adobe Premiere Pro allows to insert After Effects comps as clips directly inside Premiere, changes made on the After Effects side are visible instantly in Premiere Pro (i.e. like putting a live PSD file as a clip and making changes on the PSD file updates it) and the contents can be 'pre-rendered' too (same image example, if the PSD has tons of vector data of sorts, blurs and hundreds of layers, the content is only processed once and given the final image result).
I think they share 'compositing software' in their name but are still very far away in some features and paradigms.
Thanks a lot for chiming in on such an old thread by the way, wasn't even expecting that, greatly appreciated.