Ease in/Ease out is clunky for pan/zooms

I think you're mistaking a computer interface for reality. Just because the Center point easing controls are attached to bezier handles in the Canvas do not make they space-based. The inner bezier handles control acceleration and deceleration; by definition acceleration and deceleration are factors of time. Once again FCP does not have the keyframe interpolation controls that AE has, so you should not make assumptions about the FCP interface based on AE controls or terminology. There is no equivalent interpolation function in FCP. There is simply easing, nothing else. The Center controls may not be the prettiest in the world, but they're simple. They're done in the canvas because there are two variables, x and y, both of which are effected by the same interface control. Theoretically you could have put bezier handles on a corner of the image to control the easing of the scale, one would appear each time the playhead crossed a keyframe. That would be ugly wouldn't it? The Center bezier controls could be placed on x,y curves in the Motion tab, just as they are in the Motion application. A separate graph for each parameter. Or one graph that controlled both. Using bezier handles with both controls, for both direction as well speed, allows the interface to bundle multiple control factors in one, simple interface. By doing that of course you limit what can be done. In the Motion application the three functions, x,y and direction are in separate locations.

If by Position you mean Center, then it's in the Canvas, the one bezier handle has two controls, both of which effect the x and y parameters. The outer handle controls position and the inner handle controls easing. There is no easing available in FCP for Anchor Point controls. It could certainly be added, the same way it's done in Motion. If you want it I suggest you use Feedback. Similarly with the Distort keyframes. Bezier handles could be added for x,y values in the Motion tab. The Crop function, which only has one value per parameter, does have easing.

Actually no, motion control is not part of an editing application. It is specialist work, done by experts, using specialized hardware and software. Graphics and motion graphics are an art and a science, just as is audio, and color, and compression. If you want to do it all yourself, all the tools are available to you, I just don't understand why you don't want to use them. If you want to do a simple move in FCP you can, a simple push that dissolves into another move, no problem. Emulating a rostrum camera or a professional camera operator doing a push or pull on an image is far more complex than simple scaling and position. Just ask one some day how many parts are moving at once and in what timing. If you want to do that in software then I'd suggest using the tools designed to do that.

You're right. Nobody relies on FCP for quality pans and zooms. I don't do it. I've done all of mine in Motion for years, and now I do it all in AE.

But we're not talking about asking FCP to do Autodesk-level compositing. We're not asking it to give us Da Vinci-style color control. We're asking it to move a picture from this spot/this size to that spot/that size without a jolt on each end. FCP even HAS all the ease controls. The features are THERE. The only problem is the way they're implemented, most humans give up on using them.

What would it take to magically transform FCP into a tool that can produce 90% of the "high quality" moves most people need to make? (And no, we're not talking about Ken Burns-like lighting, depth of field, ect. Of course you'd use a graphics program for that. I'm just talking about things like a quick and dirty push on a map to highlight a region of interest.) All it would take is two things: move the position Beziers from the Canvas to the Motion tab, and provide an Exponential Scale option when you right-click on a keyframe. Actually, the second one is pretty optional.

I'm not really asking Apple to add new features. I'm asking them to modify the implementation of the current ones almost nobody uses so that people can use them.

I heard they did this with the speed tools in FCP in the latest version. You must think that was a ridiculous move on their part, but I think Apple correctly realized that FCP's userbase needs are not the same as Avid's. For many people, quick access to a good speed ramp is more important than quick access to a dissolve. For me, being able to produce a small, smooth push on an image of a map would be fantastic.

People have mentioned that you can animate the Anchor point. That is a good point I'd forgotten about; it still takes a bit of painful back-and-forth tweaking to make this work the way you want it to, but it often is a decent workaround.

"I heard they did this with the speed tools in FCP in the latest version."

They did not. The interface was changed, the functionality was not, except for some added features such as drag for fit to fill with the speed tool.

"a quick and dirty push on a map to highlight a region of interest"

This is substantially more complex than you thing. It may be quick and dirty to you, but it's not to software and not within the interface in FCE. If you really want to do it inside FCP try the Photomotion plugin. Easy to use, quick and dirty interface.

Look, Tom. Maybe we're not talking about the same thing. All I want FCP to be able to do easily is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRdWcr-dyGg

A move, a scale, an ease. No bumps.

I did this in a very advanced, specialized graphics program called ADOBE PREMIERE.

(Note: Premiere is NOT an NLE, because someone earlier in this thread stated that no NLE can do this.)

This was my first Premiere edit EVER, but it took me less than 90 seconds to figure out. I just tried it on a hunch that it could be done.

All I did was set two Posion keyframes and two Scale keyframes. Than I selected the first pair and selected Ease Out, and selected the second pair and selected Ease In. In FCP I'd still be trying to get rid of unintended curves and bounces right now.

My degree is in Computer Science. I've written a lot of code. Not for video apps, but I have an idea of what can and can't be done easily. You can tell me all reasons why this is SOOOOO complex and specialized and all the reasons why this can't be done, but I'm not interested in any of that. I think if these tools are already there, they should be usable.

It's funny to me that Premiere implements this in exactly the way I've always thought FCP should, even though I'd never looked at Premiere's Controls tab before.

By the way, if you ever have a desire to pay a specialist to do these kinds of super-complex animations for you, I'm open for business.

"I heard they did this with the speed tools in FCP in the latest version."

"They did not. The interface was changed, the functionality was not, except for some added features such as drag for fit to fill with the speed tool."

For the record, this is exactly what I was talking about. Change the interface a bit, and sometimes you can improve functionality.

You can't do that in FCP? What are you doing? You mean something like this?

/___sbsstatic___/migration-images/migration-img-not-avail.png



They're not identical because the easing algorithms aren't the same. The res isn't very high because I just grabbed the first image that came to hand, but I'm sorry I don't have a problem with that. To me that looks smoother, and the move more natural than the YouTube video, but that may be just the YouTube playback.

Message was edited by: Tom Wolsky

Yes, exactly like that, but without the wobble. Do you not see the wobble?

When I see that on TV, it's the dead giveaway for me that somebody animated it in FCP. It shouldn't have to be that way.

Actually they both look crappy to me because they're both sliding across the image rather than aiming at the point they're moving too. That's why I'd try to do it in Motion. The start and end actions are much more realistic to me in FCP animation than in the Premiere animation.

To each his own, I guess. In fairness to both of us, neither of us took time to create a natural point of focus to which to draw the eye.

That said, I find a visually straight path from point A to point B more realistic to my eye than a bounce up, and then down, and then up again on the way there.

Unless, of course, you are trying to simulate the difficulties of creating the motion with a boom camera. I could see how that would be more realistic, but I just find it distracting. I absolutely prefer the Premiere move over the FCP one. I still can't help suspecting most untrained eyes out there would agree with me.

Most untrained eyes would never even see it and would have no idea what we're talking about, unless you played it for them a dozen times, i.e. trained them.

I agree that people wouldn't know to say "there's a bounce, isn't there?". But you don't have to consciously see something in order to sense it. I think most people would probably just think the production feels a little more homemade, but they couldn't tell you why.

I remember this stuff. Five years ago, I had almost zero knowledge about video production or visual arts. My background was all audio production. But I still could tell the difference between cheap and expensive productions in a heartbeat, even if I had know idea why. When I entered this field, I made it my business to figure out why. When I first started needing to animate photos, that FCP motion signature reminded me of so many of the locally produced commercials, corporate videos and no-budget documentaries I'd seen, and I decided I didn't want to replicate that feel. That's what drove me to using Motion more in the first place. I guess that's why it was such an emotional issue for me that I felt compelled to add to this thread in the first place. 🙂

I did this in a very advanced, specialized graphics program called ADOBE PREMIERE.

(Note: Premiere is NOT an NLE, because someone earlier in this thread stated that no NLE can do this.)

I said that no NLE can do this move WELL, and your video has only proven my point. The OP was being very specific about the quality and ease of use he was looking for which is why I and others here suggested a mograph program. I suggested Motion since it's part of the suite.

It took me about 3 minutes to replicate that move in FCP, though I'll admit you probably had an easier time of it in Premiere. But then, I've never been a fan of FCP keyframe controls. Still, it was doable, and without "wobble".

What we're talking about is essentially two different things. I'm talking about professional, high quality rostrum style moves, and you're talking about implementing a better set of controls for FCP easing.

Personally I'd applaud Apple for tweaking those controls. It would help those people who would be satisfied with simple easing on their pics and video.

Andy

Andy, I think we have a meeting of the minds on just about everything you said - especially about this to me being an issue of implementing a better set of controls for very simple tasks, such as better illustrating data - not about making the past come alive through a rich graphic presentation of historical photographs.

By the way, I did not hand-tweak the Premiere beziers WHATSOEVER. This is exactly what you see if you just click Ease and go with the defaults. If a total Premiere non-user spending a few seconds to add the default bezier curve to a random photo (did either of you tweak any beziers at all?) for a technical proof-of-concept proves to you that no NLE can execute smooth eases, than I'll just have to disagree with you on that one point.

I'd also like to add that I have a huge amount of respect for you and Tom. You guys are certainly industry heavyweights. By the time I was born, Tom had ten times the resume I do now. So please don't take my 'tude on this issue personally.

I did not.

I use FCP's "ease in, ease out" on stills lots of times and it works fine.

here is a sample

http://blip.tv/file/3076075/

having said that, Im doing the same today and its not working all so great. I dunno what the difference is? it was working before.

today Im playing with the brazier curves, trying to stack up the key frames closer or further from eachother and its still stopping dead at the end.

I dont know how I did it the other times. maybe it has something to do with the type of pics we area working with?