Testing Tools

photonal's picture

Motion 5 was been recently released, which I've been trying out. It has some teething issues but overall quite nice! I looked inside its contents - but found no QTZs!! ;-)

I used it for this track:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

jrs's picture
Re: Testing Tools

How did you use it? did you manually script the animations or is there some form of audio analysis?

itsthejayj's picture
Re: Testing Tools

Getting so worried about the Apples development of QC, praying to god they don't phase it out.

Has anyone poked inside of the new FCP? Any QC integration?

+liked the video a lot is it your own audio track?

photonal's picture
Re: Testing Tools

A lot of the filters/generators within Motion look like they could be done with QC but when I looked into the Motion Contents there were just .molo and .mopr files - copying and changing them to .qtz didn't help either ;-)

Within Motion there are functions called Parameter Behaviours, one of which is for Audio. You place this onto a filter/generator etc you would like to control via audio - whilst setting the audio response parameters, e.g. Frequency range. So the audio is driving the motion - which helps a lot with sync!

The audio track I made in Ableton.

Currently Motion is a little clunky - the UI is really slow. The discussion boards have a lot of people complaining about this (even from users with 8-Core Mac Pro machines!) It is prone to crashing and there other weird behaviours. Hopefully an update is on it's way - perhaps it was rushed to release to coincide with FCPX.

gtoledo3's picture
Re: Testing Tools

Mr. Negative, but both are pretty garbage, IMO, especially the new Final Cut, which is a bit of a final nail in the coffin for apple pro apps being legitimate professional tools.

New final cut is to old final cut what QuickTime X is to QuickTime pro. I don't think they have a clue what people want when it comes to apps, or something is going awry at some point in the process. I don't get who they're trying to market to by lopping out pro features... Why would a consumery "dumb" user buy final cut anyway and not iMovie?

photonal's picture
Re: Testing Tools

Yeah I don't understand this 'pro' thinking either. Sometimes I wonder, do these people actually use this software!?!

For example, in iMovie when you want to 'share' your project to YouTube you get feedback in terms of how long it's got to go and how much of the project it has already uploaded.

In Motion 5, the info button will zoom to 95% (for the transcoding part) and then just sit there without any further feedback whilst it uploads the file to YouTube.

So the consumer iMovie has better (more pro) features than a Pro App - quite disappointing. But hey, I doubt I could programme Motion 5 (in fact I know I couldn't!!) so who am I to complain?

gtoledo3's picture
Re: Testing Tools

I just think the implementation is stupid... the lack of having the setups be built on something like QC makes it less useful, and more like something that will become dated and cliched from it's limitations. The "rigs" feature and timeline editor feel like suggestions I've made as interface to QC, but "not right" in the way they've been done. I guess it's easy to be critical. Whateva! :) If it gets the job done...

I agree with the sentiment of "have people even used this?"

It's also disconcerting to see things like the "progress bar" issue you mention... that kind of cludge does creep up in even more mainstream apps.

Today I was looking at this thing that was Win 7 running on a touchscreen thing like an iPad, running big boy applications (sorry iOS) and thinking "now I would BUY this", whereas with an iPad, it's like "this is a toy".

Hmm.

photonal's picture
Re: Testing Tools

The trend to dumbing down is alarming - not just in the world of IT.

Where is the accompanying SDK for Motion 5 plugins? Or like you say, if it was based on QC technology (which it looks like it is perhaps even a more advanced 'closed' version) why not allow users to expand and develop on the included content?

I personally love Mac, have used Mac since my PowerBook 160 but I am not looking forward to Lion :(

It seems like a dumbed down OS (although full screen apps make sense - I mean open any app and you'll notice how much screen real estate is wasted with e.g. Title Bars etc) and the UI looks like it will be a CPU hog.

gtoledo3's picture
Re: Testing Tools

Oh, I wasn't saying it's based on QC at all. It doesn't appear to be. I'm complaining about an apparent lack of it being based in QC, or alternately, an apparent lack of there being some kind of api that's similar or better. Then again, it's $50. The OS update will probably be $30. It sort of feels like that's the way to soften the blow.

I dread Lion. It's just going to really suck when that becomes the standard thing that everyone expects one to use. It's just slower, the layout of some stuff is poor, large swarths of functionality I use every day aren't there, and there's nothing there super awesome to offset for it. The new stuff is just so gimmicky, and man, that file save thing. Argh.

photonal's picture
Re: Testing Tools

That 'File Save' thing!!! That was exactly my reaction when I followed the key note address.

For Lion, which of the big cats is the cat; I was expecting Lion to deliver some huge 'blow-you-away' OS development/advance.

But we get auto-save!

I'm so impressed by that...NOT.

gtoledo3's picture
Re: Testing Tools

Cybero said it to me, but my big prediction as well; mod to disable auto file save becomes most popular thing to do for Lion.

There's aspects I do like about it, but it may be the place, but probably not the time (it not being release yet), so I'll keep my comments to stuff that's apparent from the public teaser event, and not ADC membership.

I don't know what could be a big OS advance at this point in time. I don't disagree with some of the thought. From my armchair position, I'd also pick a consistent branding for OS, it's just that I really don't think iOS is as great as they seem to think it is at this point in time, not withstanding the overall sum of parts.

I think the iDevices have been great, even if I did say the iPad is a toy. It is in many ways, but some serious stuff can be done with it as well, and fun stuff. It's not a bad thing to sell a cool computer based toy thing, and I don't mean that pejoratively. I really enjoy my iPhone - I have a place for that. I just want an iPad like thing to do more, though I'm on the fence at times.

That was a bit of a side track, but it sure seems like the operating systems are going to merge at some point, especially if the hardware allows for it. I'd hate for it to be too iOS-y. I like my iPhone to work how it does, basically, save for some quirks, but I don't want my laptop/tower having superfluous iOS-like stuff. The app launcher doo dad seems really weird, and I'm not getting the rhyme or reason behind what it loads. I don't like the way the new desktop thing works compared to current Spaces/Expose... you can't grab app windows in the little desktop previews in any meaningful way while you're zoomed out. I don't like hidden folders that I've been used to seeing... it's just a stupid pain; unhide folder, drag folder link to Finder sidebar, done. Yet, I shouldn't have to be unhiding stuff that I use all the time currently that isn't some kind of weird embargoed non-api-ish stuff currently. In many ways, it's abrasively antagonistic to pure function.

cybero's picture
Re: Testing Tools

Regarding Motion 5 - how does it manage to utilise audio data ? [just re-read the portion of your post regarding the audio drop in •~]

Motion 5 doesn't support .qtz compositions, not for import, nor effects.

The official SDK [1.2.5] still supports Quartz Composer for plugins, not sure if that is still supported as such in Motion 5.

Still to find out.

Import is definitely off, although tantalisingly enough, drag and drop does raise a green circled plus as per usual, it just doesn't accept the file.

Nil in built framework support for Quartz Composer in Motion 5 seems to be the case, although links on the Motion site point towards Noise Industries plugins many of which are QC incorporations. Smoke clearing required :-).

The Save as .. snarl you also referred to is easily dealt with BTW.

For personal purposes, I think I'll be heading over to CEX and getting me some Motion 4 [supports .qtz BTW :-)]

harrisonpault's picture
Re: Testing Tools

Doesn't the NI FxFactory Pro basically allow QC by embedding the composition in an FxPlug (supported in Motion5) wrapper? Not really clear on this myself. If I've got that right, then this will continue to be an avenue for QC integration into the Final Cut ecosystem.

It could be an Apple strategy to support QC through this sort of layering, either with 3rd party tools such as Noise Industries, or perhaps with an official equivalent.

I wonder along with others here about Apple's commitment to QC. Did the term "quartz composer" even get mentioned at WWDC 2011? I couldn't find it in the workshop powerpoints. Very troubling.

cybero's picture
Re: Testing Tools

Interestingly enough when one exports a QC comp as a movie it QuickLooks in Motion but doesn't drag to the timeline, it Previews even with 3rd Party plugins :-).

Nice track BTW, photonal.

cybero's picture
Re: Testing Tools

Protection of clever painstaking patch coded constructs has been begged for. This layered API, SDK and if and only if approach provides that to some extent.

Also QC is currently pretty integral to providing a whole range of media outputs , system furniture, interfaces, utilities and eye ball pleasers.

I was going to kind of mark down Motion earlier regards Audio integration. The actual range of data is, so far as I know, sufficient, but not as broad ranging as if like Kineme Audio Tools, but what it does do very well is syncing up with what it is 'happy' to change with such dynamic data.

There it shines.

Still seeking on a how to create content, plugins, etc for Motion 5.

cybero's picture
Re: Testing Tools

Regards the failure to convert .molo or .mopr by renaming of extension to .qtz , although they are both XML lists, they don't share the same application specific dictionary entries and those within .qtz and those within .mopr or .molo don't necessarily translate well in every case to each others syntax.

gtoledo3's picture
Re: Testing Tools

The Quicktime thing makes sense... the Quicktime wrapper handles so much crap, and no one probably lopped it out for that context. Too bad that they didn't let it get handled in the editor - a timeline editor that isn't "timelines" would be a good fit for QC, and vice versa.

It may preview with third party plugins because you've enabled safe mode via kinemecore, or b/c those plugins are marked to work in safe mode specifically. Does v002 Rutt Etra work, for instance? (It shouldn't.)

gtoledo3's picture
Re: Testing Tools

I disagree in the thought that this is any kind of nod to protection of assets, because there's not a reasonable api being provided, that I'm aware of at least. I may stand corrected for sure. One can look at that plist, so it's not protected at all. I think it's more of a lack of thought or concern that results in there not being some kind of editing system.

gtoledo3's picture
Re: Testing Tools

That would be FXPlug, but yeah, I was under the impression that was replaced? I need to take another peak..

photonal's picture
Re: Testing Tools

I was hoping the .molo or .mopr were synonyms for .qtz - like how you can change a .ipa to a .zip and access it that way.

Anyway - I just sent the Motion Team the following feedback (What was not great was how out of date the selectable options are - I mean surely there is someone at Apple who updates this stuff?).

Hi,

[Motion 5]

I am new to Motion and on the face of it a great app. However, I believe the potential of Motion 5 is not being realised and hope that an update will be forthcoming soon.

i) The UI is extremely sluggish; even without any real-time rendering going on - on an i7 iMac with 12GB RAM!

ii) The Audio Parameter Behaviour does provide feedback which matches the audio fed into it - for example when feeding it Kick Drum frequencies I would expect peaks to be seen in the mini audio window.

iii) In the manual it states : "What you see in the Canvas is what will be output when you share a project.", However, what you see in the Canvas is not necessarily what gets Rendered - I have a 9 minute long project where for some reason some layers do not get rendered to output - they cut out half-way through. However, if I render just a portion, these missing layers are rendered! So, it has nothing to do with a change of Opacity etc. What is going on there?

iv) It doesn't seem possible to drive Multiple Parameters from just one Audio Parameter Behaviour. It doesn't seem very efficient of CPU resources to have to create (and analyse audio data) for each and every parameter being driven by the same audio source.

v) Integration of Quartz Composer compositions - I do not know the underlying technologies used in Motion 5, however it seems to have similarities with Quartz Composer. It would be great if there were someway to integrate User Compositions/Quartz Composer plugins into Motion 5.

vi) Will any Motion 5 tutorials be created by Apple?

vii) Some feedback on the discussion.apple.com->Motion 5 forum would be nice, so that users feel that their frustrations are being looked after and dealt with with upgrades/bug fixes and feature improvements.

Related to this feedback site:

i) Version 5 should be added to the list of 'Which version of Motion are you using?'

ii) Mac OS X 10.6.8 should be added to the list of 'Which operating system are you running?'

iii) Other amounts should be added to the list of 'How much RAM do you have installed' - I have 12GB in this iMac but the nearest selectable amount is either 8GB or 16GB.

iv) The current version, QT Pro 7.6.6 should be added to the list of 'What version of QuickTime Pro are you using?' - which is the version I am using. Currently the latest selectable version is 7.6.4

harrisonpault's picture
Re: Testing Tools

Well, George, Apple seems to think it's an asset protection tool:

"@implementation QCFxPlug

//---------------------------------------------------------

// initWithAPIManager:

//

// This method is called when a plug-in is first loaded, and

// is a good point to conduct any checks for anti-piracy or

// system compatibility. Returning NULL means that a plug-in

// chooses not to be accessible for some reason.

//--------------------------------------------------------- "

A casual glance over at the pro-apps-dev mailing list, it looks as though Apple really rushed this out the door (maybe cuz Steve-o promised June) and the FxPlug team got caught with their pants around their ankles. There are sdk bug acknowledgements, promises of a quick update, apologies, and general signs of scrambling. Of course this all has to do with the sdk, not Motion 5 itself.

gtoledo3's picture
Re: Testing Tools

This kind of diverges from the Motion thing, but I think it's interesting that Apple has apparently given users refunds on Final Cut X, and that there's now people so pissed, that a petition has started to either open source the old Final Cut code, replace it and call it something else, or I don't know what. Granted, it's only at 5,000 to 6,000 signers so far, so that's kind of a blip compared to computer appliance buyers.

There's some articles about it on ARS as of late.

This is the same thing I said about the new Xcode. I just don't know what's up when it comes to some of this stuff. I guess they all can't be winners.

usefuldesign.au's picture
Re: Testing Tools

OT: Some ad guru in UK Sir Somebodyorother once said Apple is a "vertically integrated marketing company". I thought that was harsh and a misunderstanding of how hard some of the technology Apple has delivered is to do in engineering terms and in investment of resources/risk management terms for a big corporation.

Yet there's truth to that fact that Apple often thinks about putting a product/update to market first then tell the engineer's make it so (or better) rather than what many tech companies and start ups do and that's engineer a great new tech, look for a market. So sick of sexy new feature bullet points from Apple and no improvement in the underlying workflow and quality in Apple products. FCP X could have been both, but isn't yet.

I hope it's just a case of Apple not communicating their vision at all well and rushing to market because Steve promise a June release. I'm sure the 64-bit rewrite with AVFoundation was a necessity and will prove a benefit. I'm not convinced that's all there is to it though. Not selling FCP 7 anymore seems "spiteful and arrogant". Apple has a fear of becoming redundant in the middle market because of their history in the 90s and getting smashed by M$ and internal chaos.

photonal's picture
Re: Testing Tools

Some more trying out...

This movie scrubbing effect is what I was trying to achieve in QC (see http://kineme.net/forum/AudioVisualizations/SymphonicBounce ) - Motion 5 provides some better syncing though.

cybero's picture
Re: Testing Tools

Definitely well synced, photonal :-)