Hi Darrin,
The
(current) necessity to create a template for
FCP X adds a whole new layer of problems in
terms of the things you try to do. Nothing
is really transparent when the plugin runs
inside a template under FCP X.
THE
solution to all of this is (in my opinion)
to make FCP X able to read FxPlugins
natively without going through templates.
Then we will be able to create parameters
dynamically, have custom parameters, we
could create labels (which I so badly
need(!!!) for me newest plugins)... and much
more.
Motion templates and native FxPlugs solve 2
different problems. We (and our users) want all
FxPlugs to be able to work properly with Motion
Templates. Some of the pieces that you mention above
are missing at the moment, and that's unfortunate.
Also, the idea with templates is that they will not
just contain a copy of every parameter in every
plug-in, but that developers will think through
specific tasks that users need to perform and will
provide templates for those tasks rather than raw
plug-ins with dozens of parameters that most users
won't understand.
While I understand that users want to perform certain tasks
easily, I also want to make my point about a native FxPlug
interface for FCP X:
I have a morph plugin for FCP 7, Motion 4 and I also have one
Motion 5. I don't have one for FCP X, because the way how my
plugin works makes it currently impossible to get it wrapped up
in a Motion template. The reason for that are some parameters
that need to change when the user makes some selections of other
parameters. The plugin has only a few parameters and still...
all my attempts to get it to work with FCP X failed so far. If a
user wants to use my plugin, then he needs to own Motion. This
means that one of my best selling plugins for FCP 7 is a no-sell
for FCP X.
If you think in "tasks", then what is the advantage of a
Motion template? Let's say the task is "create a zigzag border".
The plugin gives you like 3 parameters to perform the task. The
plugin does not look or feel any different for the user if it is
a native FxPlug plugin or a Motion template. This means that the
necessity to create a template is in this case just an
unnecessary additional step.
I agree that some tasks are better off as a template, where
for example 10 filters are combined to a complex effect, which
can be controlled with 1 simple parameter in a rig.
Some of the pieces that you mention above are missing
at the moment, and that's unfortunate.
If you'd add the missing pieces (custom parameters, labels,
dynamic manipulation of parameters,...) then the only difference
between a native FxPlug interface and a Motion template is that
with the native FxPlug interface we don't need to create a
Motion template anymore. Right?
One more thought:
I am thinking about creating plugins that can be extended in
their functionality dynamically (for example) over the internet
or depending on your hardware configuration. Let's say the
plugin has the ability to update itself through a database that
it can access from a server. This is a completely new thought
and was never done before (at least not with FCP). In this case
it is not at all predictable what kind of new features the
plugin will show the user the next time. Such dynamic parameters
are possible with native FxPlug plugins, but are almost
completely impossible with Motion templates, even if you add
dynamically changeable parameters to the Motion templates.
I'm not asking to get the Motion template functionality
removed. Templates totally makes sense. I just want to make my
point about the additional functionality for FCP X to be able to
access natively FxPlug plugins.
Cheers and happy easter!
Christoph
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Pro-apps-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden