Why can I not change the Project Dimensions for a project I open in Motion from within FCP?

I'm not sure what is the best way to go about asking this question, as I think that on the surface, my question is very "simple," but... I think the guts of the issue are more complex.


Basically... Within FCP, under Generators > Backgrounds... under the heading of "Documentary", there is a single background called, "Drift."


I want to create a project in Motion that uses this background. However... I want the project in Motion to be in Vertical HD: 720 x 1280 resolution. When in FCP, if I go to this Generator, right click, and select "Open copy in Motion," when it opens... I am not able to change the project "dimensions" to 720 x 1280 vertical.


I did troubleshoot and learn that I can change the aspect ratio to 1280 x 720... but using one of the presets in the dropdown. However, this is just going from one horizontal "widescreen" format to another. I tried for quite a while to figure out how to resolve this situation, but... this "simple little background" isn't simple at all once you get it into Motion, and begin to see all the groups, layers, rigging, behaviors, etc. So I was not able to "brute force" change the dimensions of this background... AND... I lack the design and product knowledge to go in and adjust divisions, scale, and whatever else I'd need to get this horizontal HD background to rotate 90 degrees... but still flow left-to-right.


Is my issue too complex for a forum like this? That would be a perfectly fine response. I just wanted to ask, in case there is some... "Convert" button I might be missing.

Posted on Apr 13, 2023 5:17 AM

Reply
Question marked as Top-ranking reply

Posted on Apr 13, 2023 5:31 AM

Try this: with the copy open in Motion, select the Project in the layers list; in the Inspector, click Project, then click Snapshots.

Add a new snapshot by clicking the "+" button, and choose 9:16.

Save your generator.


This will not be totally perfect, but will give you starting version.

FCP will use the snapshot that corresponds to the aspect ratio of each project - so this new one will be used for vertical projects.


Making more tailored adjustments for this particular snapshot, so that it is looks better in your vertical projects, is possible, but is beyond the scope of this answer. Frankly, I detest vertical video, and I am not very well versed in working with these aspect ratio "snapshots"...

Similar questions

6 replies
Question marked as Top-ranking reply

Apr 13, 2023 5:31 AM in response to Dolmetscher

Try this: with the copy open in Motion, select the Project in the layers list; in the Inspector, click Project, then click Snapshots.

Add a new snapshot by clicking the "+" button, and choose 9:16.

Save your generator.


This will not be totally perfect, but will give you starting version.

FCP will use the snapshot that corresponds to the aspect ratio of each project - so this new one will be used for vertical projects.


Making more tailored adjustments for this particular snapshot, so that it is looks better in your vertical projects, is possible, but is beyond the scope of this answer. Frankly, I detest vertical video, and I am not very well versed in working with these aspect ratio "snapshots"...

Apr 13, 2023 2:01 PM in response to Dolmetscher

Is my issue too complex for a forum like this? That would be a perfectly fine response. I just wanted to ask, in case there is some... "Convert" button I might be missing.

In general, the answer is "no".


This particular *generator* is not really conducive to adaptation because the layers of "multiple" rectangular elements are consolidated into a single (png) image files (which you can find in the generator's template Media folder). Squeezing these elements to fit the vertical space, especially the slanted elements, would pretty much ruin the effect.


You can rotate the individual (clone) layers (the position keyframes should still work the same) but you will have a spacing problem (the distance gap of 1080 height over 1920 width).


You're best option would be to create individual *shapes* - possibly use a Replicator for the "far" and "mid" "groups" [to keep the "core" shape a single object] which gives you built in options for size variations among the replicated objects. The "drifts" are keyframed.... I would have preferred a rate slider.


At this point, the explanation does become complex as you would be building the effect from scratch and not the "composites" used in this original generator. And — there is *no, one, right way* to do this project.


I can tell you, the visual effect is nice, but the project was originally poorly built... looks like something a "programmer" would do, not a template designer. This can be built as a single shape and 3 emitters (no keyframes - built in animation — plus background material which can be reused). That would make it practically infinitely variable (with the right parameters published) for the end user.


So, since you would be basically starting over, how would you want to proceed? Copy it? Or make it better?



It doesn't take much to turn this:


into this:


(pardon my gifs)


You can get away with "squeezing" the background to fit. I masked a vertical section so you could see how the same horizontally formatted template can be modified to work in vertical space (just adding a checkbox selector), but a "Shapshot" may be a better option.


This is the old background from the original; 1 rectangle (emitter source); and 1 emitter. [Shapes position, size and speed can be randomized].


BTW - if this doesn't look quite right — I really wasn't paying attention to all the details for the various coloring options or the riggings. (I have my own way of doing things.)



Apr 13, 2023 5:49 AM in response to Luis Sequeira1

Oh man... I 1 million % agree with you here... "Frankly, I detest vertical video."


If you think I'm kind of a jerk about FCP and Motion... you would probably want to just tell me to relax if we could ever grab some beers and chat about how disgusting mobile telephones are making... everything become


My degrees from University are both in Film and Television production. And I clearly remember how gleeful everyone was when all the new television started to hit the stores that were labeled as "HD". Because this meant that the industry was finally taking one stop closer to a more cinematic widescreen format.


And with the scroll of one generation's tremendously fragile, index finger across a phone screen... and suddenly every media company, platform, content creator, editor, and hobbyist are all perfectly happy to try to force content to work on a tiny mobile phone.


And... if it were just stupid TikTok videos and Instagram time-wasters... I'd be fine with it all.


But... when I think back to the downright silky smooth voice of Jony Ive describing how glorious the new MacBook Pro's "Retina display" was... with all it's glorious pixel depth... and it's huge, almost borderless size... I really want to bark on the carpet of the Apple store every time I see how Apple wants to iPhone-i'fy macOS with this new vertical scroll System "settings"... instead of "preferences".


I never could have imagined that I would feel sad nostalgia about the icon-focused, horizontal, everything-fits-on-the-screen look of the older "System Preferences" page. Until now I have to look at this painfully clustered... NEEDLESSLY vertical scroll that is now called "System Settings" within macOS.

This thread has been closed by the system or the community team. You may vote for any posts you find helpful, or search the Community for additional answers.

Why can I not change the Project Dimensions for a project I open in Motion from within FCP?

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple Account.