Motion 5.0.X Prerelease Discussion

What will we see and what do we wish for the next Motion update?
Motion 5 updates are coming faster then any previous versions it is going to be interesting to see what major tools and features we will see... so far we only received Rigging and a darker interface with bigger buttons. BUT it does have a kick a$$ Keyer! :woohoo:

Don't forget the Feedback page!

Here are few function I would like to see in the near future:

• Clone Brush
• Morphing
• 3D Object
• 3D Text
• 3D & Planar Tracker
• Better integration from FInal Cut Pro
• Adobe Illustrator file support

Same on top of the list for me.

• Clone Brush
• Better control over mask feathering (per vertex)
• Additional "Drop Zones" to behave like the "Effect Source" & "Title Background" in templates
• "Render Settings" to be publishable in templates
• Adjustable duration build in & out sections in templates
• 3d extrude tool
• 2 way round tripping with FCPX
• Waveform monitors

Broadcast monitor output.

Continued from:

www.fcp.co/forum/4-final-cut-pro-x-fcpx/...-faces-effect-called

Once you get how Groups handle alpha, that's not a big deal.

How groups handle alpha isn't really hard to get, it's just not always that great. An example would be the following images. The first shows the effect applied to a colour solid, the second shows some very undesirable behaviour when applied to the group, it affects the alpha.

I'm aware that AE has a separate "Bevel Alpha" effect, this in Motion would be nice but I've come across other issues with other effects/image units on alpha's that don't come back to mind as obviously as this one. If anyone has a way to replicate the AE "Bevel Alpha" effect I'd be interested to hear.







Edit, if the images start to work again maybe you'll see what I mean.

Here's one that could be controversial, I'd like to see the colour board in Motion.

If the update provided 2 way roundtripping to FCPX per earlier requests you would essentially have the color board, No?

Definitely, and that would be more preferable.

OMG, the "Squeel" is horrible enough in FCP X. Why would anyone want that piece of nonsense in Motion? A "rectangle" that is measured in "circular degrees"? Really?

Ok, you got me thinking there Ben. For those who like to measure hue in degrees I can see why the colour board may not be ideal. But it's just another representation, it's not the only measure of colour, and certainly not the oldest or even truest.

There is no doubt that the rectangle is measured in degrees, the adjustable values below it show that it is. But while I don't see colour based on values while I'm making adjustments, it's not that hard to see where the representation comes from.

All together I find it very intuitive, I know when I'm adding any given colour and I know when I'm removing any given colour, just like I do with wheels and with lighting gels. I don't find it any better or any worse than a set of wheels, it's nice that it takes up less real estate and it has become my preferred tool.

NocoDave wrote: But it's just another representation, it's not the only measure of colour, and certainly not the oldest or even truest.

Actually it is. It is based on the science of color and light. The "Squeel" we have now has no connection to how color and light interact.

If I do "minus blue", tell me, based on the Squeel, what color is going to be added, before I move the puck? You can't know. On the scientifically created color wheel, you know right away before doing anything.

Yes, the color "wheel" is not arbitrary, it's not made by some fancy designer, it was crated by actual science. How is the Squeel based on the science of color and light?

It is in no way "professional" nor "intuitive" beyond the most newbie usage of color work.

Does anyone here understand the science of complimentary colors? Let's just throw all of the evolution of color science out of the window, and just simplify to some random shot in the dark crap, right? So not knowing BEFORE you touch a control what will happen is a GOOD thing?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_color

If you've done professional feature film or feature broadcast coloring, you know how vital a color correction control surface is. To be able to move two or all three track balls at once, or track balls and wheels at once, is vital to quickly get complex corrections done.

Try to adjust to true, 100 percent red adjustment. You can't. With an external scope, we tested, and there's a gap in the left and right sides of the Squeel. Not to mention, if you have a really red hue, do you go to the left or right side of the Squeel to remove it? Visually you can't tell.

Apple screwed the pooch on this one, and reduced us all to newbie color correction with no idea how "professional" level color grading works. There's not one thing about FCP X's color grading tools that would work for a feature film, or feature broadcast production, period.

Great for wedding videographers, but not for professional broadcast or film work.

It is just another representation, and I know it's based on the science of colour and light.

The colour wheel is definitely an excellent representation of colour for artists, it is very intuitive, I don't want to argue against that. It has been used for centuries, and measuring colour by degrees is a measurement of where colours sit on that representative wheel.

To have the colour board measure in degrees does seem a bit strange, and probably not essential.

If you do minus blue on a colour wheel you can see exactly what colour your adding, I know that, but you should know this without the visual representation. I don't need to be able to see it based on the colour colour board, when I do minus blue on the colour board I know I'm adding orange just as when I add an orange gel to a light I know I'm removing blue. There's no colour wheel on the back of a light to adjust or to automatically show the representation.

For this reason I think anyone new to colour could get a greater understanding of what they are doing using the board, the same understanding that comes from working with lights.

But I do think that there would be good in allowing the user decide whether to work with the board or with wheels.

"If you do minus blue on a colour wheel you can see exactly what colour your adding, I know that, but you should know this without the visual representation."

Based on what visual representation of the Squeel do you know this? You prove my point. Unless you have been very well trained in color, you don't know.

"...anyone new to color could get a greater understanding of what they are doing using the board..."

Really? By taking shots in the dark, and not having an empirical, factually representation? Again, you just proved my point it's a trial and error tool, not a professional tool.

All they had to do was put complimentary colors on the bottom. Simple as that! Why wasn't it done that way?

Teach color grading to an auditorium of newbies with the Squeel, you'll find out quickly it's crap.

I'm done with the subject of non-intuitive, unprofessional color tools.

Based on what visual representation of the Squeel do you know this? You prove my point. Unless you have been very well trained in color, you don't know.

That is my point too, based on no representation of the colour board, based on essential knowledge.

Teach color grading to an auditorium of newbies with the Squeel, you'll find out quickly it's crap.

Teach them with a set of lights and pile of gels, what then?

Hauling lights and gels to a seminar or 3 day class is not practical. Besides, then you get in to additive vs subtractive light. Two different things.

Back to Motion 5.0.4, I'd just like to see more refined rotoscoping tools.

I'd like to have the ability to set a location for my project that doesn't change when I choose to export media. Currently, when I set a location to export media, Motion sets that location as the default location for when I want to save my project. Not a major problem but its kind of inconvenient.

Does this mean that FCP X is an app not meant for professional use?

BenB wrote: Apple screwed the pooch on this one, and reduced us all to newbie color correction with no idea how "professional" level color grading works. There's not one thing about FCP X's color grading tools that would work for a feature film, or feature broadcast production, period.

Great for wedding videographers, but not for professional broadcast or film work.

Ben; how are you currently working around this? DaVinci?

Hauling lights and gels to a seminar or 3 day class is not practical. Besides, then you get in to additive vs subtractive light. Two different things.

That's irrelevant to my point, my point was that you don't need a graphic representation to practice colour theory. And while it can be useful, you don't even need one to learn it.

I just realised that I missed what I was reading earlier:

Besides, then you get in to additive vs subtractive light. Two different things.

For sure they are different things, and I also think it's important to learn the difference and to know that in relation to teaching colour theory with lights and gels compared to post production equipment it's all additive.

BenB wrote: Again, you just proved my point it's a trial and error tool, not a professional tool..

I'm done with the subject of non-intuitive, unprofessional color tools.

grailz wrote: Does this mean that FCP X is an app not meant for professional use?

Good question.
I always thought a professinal could us any tool professionally. :evil:
Circle or square, at first I was like what the hell but since I have been working with colors naturally and digitally and understand the fundamentals of color it doesn't really bother me.

I would like to see import camera settings but I guess Motion has to become more a compositing tool then a graphic application.