Ease in/Ease out is clunky for pan/zooms

Question

Level 3

613 points

Ease in/Ease out is clunky for pan/zooms

I'm using FCP 5 with 10.5.6. When panning and zooming around in a still image (photo), I just can't get an easy landing or stop at the end of the motion, no matter how I adjust the ease in/ease out speed. After choosing Ease in/ Ease out on a keyframe, I shove the little blue speed-control bead toward or away from the keyframe along the motion path, but that distance is limited, and I see very little difference in the result. The motion still stops with a perceptible jerk or clunk.

I have used applications like Photo-to-Movie that have great control on the speed of pans and zooms, and the motion of a pan or zoom starts or stops very gently and almost imperceptibly. Photo-to-Movie costs only $25, so I can't see why an expensive professional program like Final Cut can't do the same thing. I can do smooth pan/zooms in PTM, export the result as a DV clip, and then drop the clip into Final Cut, but I can't adjust the motion within FCP. And working in an outside application to import the results is a real slow-down.

Assuming that the Ease in/Ease out control is all the control you have for smoothing pan/zooms in FCP, and it's inadequate, is there any plug-in for FCP 5 (free or at least inexpensive) that will produce gentle starts and stops?

Tom

G5 2.0 GHz, Mac OS X (10.5.6), 8 GB of RAM

Posted on Mar 19, 2010 8:19 PM

Reply

Answer 1

Andy Neil

Level 4

3,795 points

Mar 19, 2010 8:36 PM in response to Tom Baker1

Tom Baker1 wrote:
I can't see why an expensive professional program like Final Cut can't do the same thing.

FCP is a video editing application. It's designed primarily for editing video, not animating graphics. This is why you may get a better result from photo animation software.

FCS comes with Motion however, which is quite good at animating photos. I would do your animation there. You can then import the Motion project into Final Cut and go back to Motion afterwards if you need to make changes.

Andy

Reply

Answer 2

Tom Baker1 Author

Level 3

613 points

Mar 19, 2010 8:46 PM in response to Andy Neil

Thanks Andy. I'm still learning these programs and I don't know how to use Motion yet, although I have it available because it was part of the Final Cut Studio package that included Final Cut. So I guess it's time to learn Motion and see what it can do for smoothing out pan/zooming on still images. At least, as you say, it's possible to round-trip from Final Cut to Motion and back to make adjustments in the motion.

Tom

Reply

Answer 3

Tom Baker1 Author

Level 3

613 points

Mar 20, 2010 2:06 PM in response to Tom Baker1

Well, I've played around with Motion now and seen how it can move still images around in pan/zooms, and I'm not too impressed with it. It does a little better than Final Cut, but not a whole lot better, and certainly nowhere near the capabilities of that $25 application called Photo-to-Movie. Motion's ease in/ease out motions are marginally smoother, and start and stop without quite so much of a jerk, but I guess I'm a perfectionist.

I think Final Cut programmers need to address some basic functionality, and improve these motion controls for easing the starting and stopping of moving objects. The fact that I'm working with still images, and Final Cut is for video, is no excuse, because these same motion controls determine the movement of windows-within-windows and other moving video objects. Such objects containing video clips don't move (i.e. start or stop) any better than windows containing still images.

Of course, I'm using Motion 2 and Final Cut 5, and maybe later versions of these programs do have somewhat better motion controls, for all I know, but I am still seeing grumbling from people who are using later versions and trying to do what I'm doing, and still not getting great results.

I guess I'll just have to keep using Photo-to-Movie to generate silky-smooth pans and zooms on still images, and import the resulting DV clips into Final Cut, but doing so is an extra step and slows me down considerably.

Tom

Reply

Answer 4

Andy Neil

Level 4

3,795 points

Mar 20, 2010 2:52 PM in response to Tom Baker1

No offense Tom, but you've probably barely scratched the surface of Motion's capabilities. It FAR superior to FCP in animation, and can do extremely smooth pan and zooms with keyframes or with behaviors. I do them all the time and I guarantee that I could get an identical effect with photos as Photo-to-Movie.

But it sounds like you're happy with your $25 program, and since you've already purchased it, you might as well use it.

Most of the people who are grumbling about trying to pan and zoom pics are people who need help, usually through inexperience using the program. People don't go on forums to tell you how they're NOT having problems using a program.

I wasn't making an excuse for Final Cut's Motion controls, I was stating a fact. The fact is, that there isn't a single NLE out there that does that kind of movement well. They are designed to edit video, not move video or pictures around. Sure, some of that functionality is built into all of these NLEs but for really specialized effects, you use specialized software.

You seemed to have figured that out with your Photo-to-Movie program. I only mentioned Motion as an alternative since it comes with the suite and doesn't cost anything extra.

Andy

Reply

Answer 5

Tom Baker1 Author

Level 3

613 points

Mar 20, 2010 3:50 PM in response to Andy Neil

Thank you again, Andy. Great to hear that Motion can do better than I was able to make it do. Guess I need instructions or a video tutorial that shows me how to do what you say Motion can do. The control of motion in Photo-to-Movie is so simple and intuitive that anybody can quickly get great results with it. I call that good program design--an application in which you don't have to spend hours locating and experimenting with the use of obscure controls--you just quickly adjust a few slopes and curves on a graph and you get the results you want. Seems to me, if I remember right, that even early versions of iMovie had smoother motion control in pan/zooms than Final Cut does (it was called the Ken Burns effect there).

I'm presently following the tutorials and watching the demo movies included in Larry Jordan's Final Cut Pro Hands-On Training, where he shows windows containing video moving within and across other windows, starting and then "landing" in certain places. He seems satisfied with the "smoothing" of the starts and stops that Final Cut provides, but I am not; to me they're jerky and clumsy. I have another tutorial book, by Tom Wolsky, in which Wolsky criticizes the motion-smoothing controls in Final Cut, so I guess he must be as fussy as I am--and both of us fussier than Jordan.

I located the same smoothing controls in Motion that Jordan demonstrates in Final Cut, and used them as he showed in his demo movie, but the results are only marginally better in Motion, still slightly clunky on the starts and stops. There must be other controls in Motion that I have not tried, if you say it can do as well as Photo-to-Movie--but really, if you haven't tried Photo-to-Movie yourself, how do you know? The starts and stops in PTM are actually imperceptible, there is gradual and natural acceleration from a start, followed by deceleration to a gentle and again imperceptible landing. Easy to do, great to watch. If Motion can really do that, then I guess it's time for me to trot over to the Motion forum and ask a few questions there.

Regards,

Tom

Reply

Answer 6

Andy Neil

Level 4

3,795 points

Mar 20, 2010 4:18 PM in response to Tom Baker1

if you say it can do as well as Photo-to-Movie--but really, if you haven't tried Photo-to-Movie yourself, how do you know?

The only reason I know that I could do as well in Motion is only due to the fact that in Motion, I have complete control over the animation of an element. Starting slowly and stopping slowly is a bezier curve. There are ease in and out interpolations for Motion as well, but if you really intend to create as impersceptible a start/stop as possible, you need the added control of the bezier controls. Whatever happens behind the scenes in Photo-to-Movie is no more than a manipulation of a standard bezier curve. What makes it a good program is likely how simple it makes the creation of the move. For a lot of people, that will be worth the price of the program.

The control of motion in Photo-to-Movie is so simple and intuitive that anybody can quickly get great results with it. I call that good program design--an application in which you don't have to spend hours locating and experimenting with the use of obscure controls--you just quickly adjust a few slopes and curves on a graph and you get the results you want.

I'm sure Photo-to-Movie is a great program for what it does. I can't use it to multi-clip edit, or create advanced 3D particle systems, but for photo animation, I'm sure it's awesome. I'll have to look into it myself.

FCP and Motion are more complex because of all they do. Sometimes this can be frustrating if what you're trying to accomplish is something small and simple. That's why specialty programs and plug-ins have their niche.

Andy

PS: I'm in Tom's camp as well. Can't really stand FCP's motion controls. Stopped using them when Motion came around.

Reply

Answer 7

Mar 20, 2010 7:38 PM in response to Tom Baker1

I guess I noticed this thread a little late. Tom, I've been exactly where you are, only I'm about 3-4 years down the road. I've been using Motion to do some pretty complex motion graphics, and have recently graduated to After Effects since my job has shifted almost completely from editing to graphics.

Sounds like PTM is a great alternative for you, but everyone's correct that Motion will do everything you need it to if you learn the keyframe view inside and out.

That said, Motion 3+ is quite a bit better at Ken Burns-ing than Motion 2. This is because you can move in Z-space, which is far more realistic than using scaling to simulate camera zooms, which is what FCP and Motion 2 limit you to doing. (If you've ever made a really big scale adjustment, you know the effect I'm talking about. This is due to the fact that zooming in the real world creates an exponential scale effect, but FCP uses linear scaling.)

You may be able to replicate the Z-space effect with Motion's Basic 3D filter (I don't remember). Come to think of it, you might even be able to do it in FCP with the free Multispace plugin from Noise Industries (which I haven't tested).

You're absolutely right about FCP's clunkiness. The main problem isn't the quality of the Beziers in FCP. The main problem is that the scale beziers are time-based, and motion beziers are space-based in the canvas. And it's nearly impossible to get your time-based zoom ease to line up with your space-based pan ease.

We can argue about whether this kind of thing is above an NLE's pay grade, but I think FCP's approach is hairbrained, plain and simple. I can't imagine why they decided to do it this way. I hope they do produce a better Motion tab... someday.

One thing you could try would be to make the move with no easing, nest the sequence, and then retime the shot to create the eases. You may run into some frame blending issues with this, however, depending on how intelligently FCP handles this kind of operation.

Motion 3 is much easier, because you're making only one move from point A to point B in 3D space (with either the camera or the image). Adding and adjusting the the ease is a cinch.

Reply

Answer 8

Tom Wolsky

Level 10

152,780 points

Mar 20, 2010 7:49 PM in response to Community User

Scaling an object will always be logarithmic. An image at 50% of frame size only fills a quarter of the screen. As it gets smaller the scaling appears to speed up. Moving an object is completely different. It's always linear. This has nothing to do with easing in and out of motion to create acceleration and deceleration. Advanced motion graphics applications like After Effects get around the scaling problem by using exponential scaling to curve the scaling ramp to compensate for this. Something similar can be reproduced in FCE but it's very tricky to balance the scaling ramp using the bezier handles. There isn't enough control to do it properly, and it's basically an exact mathematical formula to the curve that is almost impossible to reproduce by hand.

Reply

Answer 9

Mar 21, 2010 1:22 AM in response to Tom Wolsky

Try this:

http://www.noiseindustries.com/fxfactory/panandzoom/index.html

It's free from Noise Industries.

Harry

Reply

Answer 10

Mar 21, 2010 5:06 AM in response to Tom Wolsky

Thanks for the correction, Tom. I could have been clearer that the scaling problem is completely separate from the bezier problem that the original post was addressing. But I felt it was also an issue worth bringing up if we're talking about which applications are best for creating Ken Burns moves.

I guess I wouldn't have thought of scaling as logarithmic. Sure, in your example the volume is quadrupling, but length and width (X and Y parameters) are scaling linearly. An image at 50% size fills a quarter of the screen, but it is still 50% size along the X and Y axes. I think this explains why FCP treats it the way it does.

As far as easing goes, the problem is still time-based vs. space based keyframes.

In After Effects, if I scale something from 85% to 100% while panning across it, and I set a time-based ease to all keyframes, (and I'm not using Z-space or AE's Exponential Scale option) then everything looks smooth and fine. The scaling works because it's only a conservative amount, and the motion looks like a real camera move. However, if I use a time-based ease on the scaling and a space-based ease on the motion, then I'm replicating the way FCP handles keyframes, and I'll have the same problems creating smooth ins and outs.

Reply

Answer 11

Tom Wolsky

Level 10

152,780 points

Mar 21, 2010 6:58 AM in response to Community User

Final Cut doesn't have the easing distinctions that many motion graphics applications. All smoothing in FCP is time based. There is no equivalent to what AE is doing. To do what you're doing properly in AE you animate the pan behind or the anchor point (it's been years since I used AE I'll hasten to add). None of that is possible in FCP. Animating the anchor point with the scaling in FCP will come closer to reproducing the AE behavior.

If you're trying to reproduce motion control as done by a computer controlled rostrum camera use a motion graphics application.

Reply

Answer 12

Tom Baker1 Author

Level 3

613 points

Mar 21, 2010 12:51 PM in response to Tom Wolsky

Thanks for all the comments everyone, and thank you also Tom Wolsky for your great tutorial books and DVDs that have helped me to gain some competence with Final Cut. I recommend them highly to anyone learning the program.

To shed some light on the purpose of my original post, the project I'm working on contains both video footage and still images. In this video I'm demonstrating how to paint pictures, while using still images of historic paintings as examples of how the old-time painters did things, compared to what I'm doing now.

So in this video I alternate from live demonstrations of painting, to still images of old paintings, slowly panning and zooming around the old paintings and stopping to analyze portions of them.

I find that there is something comfortable and soothing about good pan/zooms as compared to the unsettling feelings and irritation caused by watching jerky starts and stops, with unnatural acceleration and deceleration between.

You have all made it clear to me (thanks again) that it is a matter of the mathematics involved in Final Cut's treatment of pan/zooms that makes it hard to get smooth movements of that type in FC. I still think it's odd that I can get wonderful pan/zooms from a cheapie little program like Photo-to-Movie but not a pro application like Final Cut, but at least PTM can get the job done for me, although it is a slowdown to have to use it. I first have to create the pan/zooms on still images in PTM and then export them as DV clips to drop into Final Cut. If a pan/zoom then needs adjustment, I have to throw the clip away, go back to PTM and modify the movement, and then export a fresh clip. Very slow.

By the way, I visited the Photo to Movie website, which I haven't done for a long time, and I see that the price of the program has now doubled to $50. The authors have apparently gotten big ideas and have added transitions, titles, and other kinds of editing besides just movement. On their demo webpage <http://tinyurl.com/yfej3j4> you can see sample pans and zooms created by the program. The third sample movie down from the top, with the zebras, shows some of the types of motion I'm after, such as the scene that zooms gently in on the turtle's head or the dog near the end of that movie. Note how smooth the starts/stops are.

In my own YouTube movie <http://tinyurl.com/yh8hl38>, which I created in Final Cut in 2008, the paintings that leap out at you with music at the beginning were also created in Photo to Movie and dropped into Final Cut. In that case the motion is almost violent, and no doubt I could have done it just as easily in Final Cut, but at that time I was new to keyframing in Final Cut and had gotten so accustomed to the ease of doing such things in PTM that I used it for that too. A few minutes further along in that video you can see the kind of gentle pan/zooming by PTM that I'm trying to create again now in a new video. My failed attempts to do it in Final Cut a couple days ago are what led me to ask for help here.

Maybe if I can gain a better grasp of Motion 2 I could do better with it than my first attempt yesterday, and I could also also round-trip between Motion and Final Cut to quickly adjust the movements, but I just don't know the program well enough yet to do that. I'll search for tutorials and demo movies on Motion. Someone above has also said that Motion 2 is inferior to version 3 in this respect, and I don't have 3, so I guess I'm stuck with Photo to Movie for the present to get smooth pan/zooms.

Thanks again everyone for all the enlightenment on this subject.

Tom B.

Reply

Answer 13

Tom Wolsky

Level 10

152,780 points

Mar 21, 2010 3:26 PM in response to Tom Baker1

"So in this video I alternate from live demonstrations of painting, to still images of old paintings, slowly panning and zooming around the old paintings and stopping to analyze portions of them."

This you want to do in a motion graphics application or plugins like GeeThree Photomotion or dedicated applications like Photo-to-Movie. There are are lot of them, plugins and applications. Final Cut is a video editing application. It's the central application in a suite of applications designed to work together. The central application brings in your video, edits and organizes it, and outputs it. If you don't want to use third party software then you have to use the application that's part of the suite designed to do this type of work. Put the images in the FCP timeline, send them to a Motion project and do the animation there, with great control and ease in realtime. Simply save the project and it's updated in FCP. That's the way the suite is designed to work.

Reply

Answer 14

Mar 21, 2010 8:57 PM in response to Tom Wolsky

"All smoothing in FCP is time based."

Really? When I add an ease to a motion path in FCP, the only bezier controls I can find are in the Canvas. The canvas is measured in space, along X and Y. There's no visual concept of time in the canvas window. This is what I mean by space-based, not time-based.

If you know where I can find bezier controls for Position or Anchor Point in the Motion tab where measurements are along a timeline, please tell me how to do it! I certainly don't pretend to know everything about FCP. This would solve a lot of problems for me, since scaling beziers only exist in the motion tab timeline.

I think I'd disagree philosophically that a decent pan and zoom is a "specialized function". I could see how a film or scripted TV editor would see it this way since you're generally dealing with cuts and imported VFX segments, but I think anyone who produces historical documentaries or news segments would see it as a very basic function for a modern NLE.

Reply

Answer 15

Andy Neil

Level 4

3,795 points

Mar 22, 2010 12:28 AM in response to Community User

Clint1459 wrote:
I think I'd disagree philosophically that a decent pan and zoom is a "specialized function". I could see how a film or scripted TV editor would see it this way since you're generally dealing with cuts and imported VFX segments, but I think anyone who produces historical documentaries or news segments would see it as a very basic function for a modern NLE.

But by using that logic, NLE's should also be able to produce CGI effects because there isn't a Hollywood studio picture these days that doesn't have some kind of visual effect in it.

FCP has a color corrector effect, but if you're picky, you're not going to use it to color your film. You're going to use a DaVinci, or Color, or (insert Color Timing software/hardware here).

FCP CAN animate a pan and zoom effect. What Tom is suggesting is that to achieve a refined, high-quality result, you should use software designed for that kind of work.

Those Ken Burns historical documentaries used a rostrum camera to achieve their super-smooth moves in camera. It wasn't a post-production effect. So I'm guessing they had little need to animate scaling in FCP. In fact, I would be willing to bet that any of those history channel docs you might watch had their pans and zooms produced with Mograph software at the least and not with the stock tools in FCP.

The Motion Tab is very useful, and it even works for animation in a pinch, but just like the OP, I would not rely on it for quality work. My only difference is that I don't expect FCP (or Avid for that matter) to be capable of it.

Andy

Reply