Final Cut Pro X or Motion?
Both FCP X and Motion allow you to perform compositing and animation. How do you decide which to use? This week on MacBreak Studio, I show Steve Martin from Ripple Training how to approach the same task in both applications.
According to Wikipedia, “Cinemagraphs are still photographs in which a minor and repeated movement occurs.” Cinemagraphs are intriguing because at first they appear to be regular photographs but then some small movement creates confusion and interest in the viewer: is this a photograph or a video?
In the examples we show here, the movement isn't repeated but it is regular and continuous: steam coming from a teapot, flames on a stove, and water streaming from a hose. The key to a good subject is to have something moving in the shot that can be isolated from the non-moving parts.
The basic technique is quite simple: compositing a freeze frame on top of the video clip, then using a mask to reveal the moving portion of the video underneath. These processes can be performed in both FCP X and Motion, however each has its strengths and weaknesses.
For example, in Final Cut Pro, it's fast and easy to create a connected clip out of a single frame of a video clip on the primary story line. But the masking tools in FCP X are limited to a simple 4-point matte (unless you have Ripple Tools, which include an 8-point and 16-point matte). On the other hand, the color correction tools in FCP X are great, making it easy to do the type of secondary color correction that I demonstrate.
Motion has much better masking tools for creating more complex mattes. And it's also easy to create a freeze frame by applying a behavior to a video clip. Yet color correction works quite a bit differently than FCP X, making it more difficult to perform secondary color correction. Check out the video and decide which would work better for you.
The cinemagraphs by Peter Wiggins that I mention can be seen here.