So I did as you suggested Darrin,
I created a 1920x1080 Motion template for FCP using Motion's Gaussian Blur plugin to test what happens with a write-once all-encompassing template to be used for all resolutions in FCP.
So to see if FCP was scaling the image to 1920x1080 internally before applying the Motion-templatized Gaussian Blur I did the following:
Then I pulled the same 720x480 footage into FCP, using the Motion template for the very same Motion-supplied Gaussian blur (publishing all the settings that are available). I then set the blur radius to 20.0, which is what I did in Motion, and I get this result:
So it's "obvious" to me that FCP does indeed tell Motion blur a 1920x1080 scaled up version of my 720x480 image (or some variant where one dimension is 1920 and the other is 1080 with possible corrections for pixel aspect ratio and frame-size ratio differences.
So the 1920x1080 templates you provide for Motion effects for use in FCP have the side effect of potentially not producing the same results for the same settings.
So this means that providing a generic template at 1920 x 1080 is not currently feasible because if you don't make templates for the exact size that our plugins will indeed suffer from (a) needless calculation; or (b) needless softening; or (c) even worse: crappy tracking because of the upscaling which I've determined is probably pixel replication (I'd still like to hear back from you on this).
I think the real fix is to provide a native resolution setting for effect plugins so that we can get the native resolution of underlying footage and not the resolution of the drop zone(s) or project settings of the Motion template.
Pete
|