"thoughts on the plugin v template, code v built in effects debate"

(I chose to cite our Grandmaster for the thread title, hope that's ok. This comment by myself about Crumplepop's Finisher sparked this new thread.)

Let me "seed" the debate by sharing with you my side of a recent email exchange with the good people at MotionVFX. This should make clear what I'm on about, especially for FCP X effects "newbies" like myself (I've left my text as is, except highlighting the products I discuss)

(written to Szymon Masiak of MotionVFX, 30.08.11:)

"omg !!!!

I just played a bit with mlooks and discovered what I hadn't dared hoped is actually the case -- the looks are fully customizable, it's actually an open-ended grading toolbox. From your description of the product I could not make this out before loading it. Then again, I'm the guy who couldn't find his shopping cart ….

Am I being dense this week or is this feature/fact not advertised? I thought it was just a collection of presets and merely hoped that some would do the job for me.

Speechless.

I need my meds."

To which Mr Masiak responded by confirming that this fact, i.e. that mLooks are "really" Motion templates rather than custom code) is not advertised. Now on a roll , I had a few things to say on the topic, which had been new to me but, in retrospect, was quite an obvious distinction -- but only if one also owned and worked with Motion as well as FCP X:

" [...] there are plenty of plug-ins with far less flexibility right within FCP X than you offer, depending how they're written (whether they use custom code, for instance! And there are/will be plenty of new users migrating from FCE, iMovie, or other) who wouldn't immediately know what that means. But looking at mlooks i]sic[/i within Motion, I see what you're getting at. Each mlook is (I think) a "preset" in the classic sense, consisting of a stack of Motion-native tools packaged into an effect (the way I would make an effect as a user). This brings up an interesting point, I think, which developers ought to consider in their marketing (don't mean you in this case because mlooks, as I state again below, is absolutely terrific in my mind for 40 as it would be for 80 $/€):

Just inspected CrumplePop's Finisher, it's built the same way and actually very similar to something I made myself using lacquer's Conduit. By comparison, Finisher in my mind is too expensive (one simple effects stack, though admittedly cleverly built -- but I expected custom code from the advertising). MLooks by comparison (and in any case) is a mind-blowing bargain ("old-style" - Adobe, eg. - pricing vs. "new-era" App Store philosophy?).

Neat Video, Mojo, Luca's Effects and Conduit, on the other hand, are custom code (or scripts created in XCode) adapted to Motion / FCP X. They add functionality to the effects library (at least that's the idea, obviously there are overlaps) that is not native to Motion, regardless of how clever you are with manipulating the standard set. Unless you are a "real" programmer (i.e. all the stuff that's hidden from the user), you can't make Motion do what, for instance, Neat Video or Conduit do (might disagree about Mojo ...).

So there are in fact 2 paradigms for 3rd party effects: "Scripting" using the Motion toolset (say, the "recipe" approach), and completely or partly programming from scratch and then adding the interface & code to make it work within the Motion and/or FCP X architecture ("plug & play"? Of course there's another layer of this, if one considers whether or not something is scripted with XTools or written from "scratch", if such a thing even exists anymore; but that's basically irrelevant to non-programmer-type users like me).

I have a notion that this distinction might be relevant at least to the user-perceived "value" of the cost of a commercially offered effect. Some developers are currently transparent about their approach (color grading central, say, although there the "scripting" is done within FCP X I think), others aren't (Crumplepop, "cough" motionVfx ).

I guess it depends on whether you look at Motion as a "developers toolkit" for FCP X (I don't really, I think of it more like a variation on After Effects with better FCP integration -- I don't think I'm alone as someone who feels comfortable messing about in Motion or within the nodal interface of Conduit but not in XCode) or not.

[...]

To reiterate, in the case of mLooks it would be imho in your favor to market it more aggressively as an open-ended grading toolkit, the perceived value being the expertise and effort you offer here in doing 98% of the work of creating the "recipe" for the user, who nevertheless still has full control (no "locked" code). This actually makes mLooks more attractive than, say, Mojo, which basically is the same thing but served up in the restaurant, all I can do is add pepper or salt, I'll never find out and learn from seeing the recipe (unless the chef's nice).

Does any of this make any sense? I suspect mFlare, which I don't have (yet) fits in the "plug & play" category, it seems to have a custom interface, for one thing. I'm just trying to explain my reactions (1. pleasant surprise and deep respect in case of mTools, 2. disappointment and feeling a bit ripped off in the case of Finisher, 3. ok with it because I know what I'm getting with Neat Video / Mojo / Colorizer if it ever migrates etc.), which I think won't be unique to me. [...]"

I've meanwhile downloaded the newly available demo of mFlare , which confirms my assumption above.

Discussion, anyone?

Not exactly sure what the point is of the OP. But yes, we now have the ability to create our own "templates", and also share them. As is being done here.

FXPlug 2 scripting will bring added features to a "plugin", but I think the new Rigging And Publishing paradigm in Motion/FCP X has raised the bar for developers who want to charge money for their wares. For example, a Picture-In-Picture template as I've made and posted, and as Steve Martin has posted on the Ripple Training site, is free. No one can charge us for doing it in FXPlug 2 code, unless they put features unavailable directly in Motion. Some of the very nice free stuff I see users posting shows a willingness on the part of end users to learn Motion, explore, and share as a community. It also raises the bar for third party developers to deliver us products that are well beyond what we are able to do ourselves.

Personally, I don't need a lens flair package, as I've been using (and teaching as an ACT) Motion since it's initial release, and am very comfortable with creating what I need from scratch in Motion quickly and easily. I've done it so much over the past few years, it's easy for me. Someone not as familiar with Motion would pay for a lens flair package as they may need it right away, not have time to learn Motion, and that's fine.

But, that lens flare package better be VERY impressive (and it is), or some of us my start posting freebies we built ourselves.

There's one or two things from Crumplepop that we end uses have already developed on our own to do the same thing, and we are posting them for free. Crumplepop needs to out do us in some way, or not charge for that specific template, ethically, IMHO.

That brings up an issue I'm very curious to see play out. So, I create my own Motion template for, lets say for example, lens flairs. I make 3 or 4 of them, and post them for free download here. Am I infringing on the "for pay" commercial product in any way? It is ethical for me to develop "free" Motion templates that do exactly what retail templates are doing? Personally, I think not. If I can do it with tools available to anyone who owns Motion, and want to post my work for free, that simply means the third party developers need to step up and deliver us really impressive, very complex, very sophisticated, and "needed" products.

And Conduit has always been a tool that allows us to develop in a similar manner. Looking forward to it moving beyond beta, too! If I come up with a Conduit configuration, can I save it as a "preset", and can I share that file with others? That's the new paradigm. Let's see what developers come up with.

I think purchasing a particular "recipe" or template is/ought to be kind of like letting your mechanic tune your car. You could theoretically do it yourself (ok, talking classic car here), ut may or may not have the time/expertise/tools/patience. I don't mind paying for such a service when appropriate, I just want to know what I'm paying for (if the cook's "secret sauce" is a bottle of Heinz b-b-q, I'd be ok with it in a diner, not ok if I pay for nouvelle cuisine).

Yes, I wonder when someone will be brash enough to try to copyright a particular use of a template. Hm.

If I come up with a Conduit configuration, can I save it as a "preset", and can I share that file with others?

Answer: YES! Have a look here in our very own Conduit thread. Pauli from lacquer explains how to do it in this tutorial on the dvgarage site.

My thoughts on the matter are fairly simple.

If somebody has come up with an FCPX effect that has been made in Motion that only contains say two built in filters, then they can charge what they like for it. People will either buy it or not. They do run the risk of somebody buying it and then releasing the simple construction by posting the details online.

I don't think the copyrighting of a process will ever happen, but certainly I can see people making very similar copies of effects/templates that are posted for sale.

I don't think it will be until Apple provide a method of locking Motion templates that the clever stuff will really happen. - Just pick anybody who makes unlocked Motion products and add 'torrent' to the company name to see that a lot of their content is already available online for nothing should you wish to persue that method.

I also hope that when Apple finally allow FxPlug2 plugins into FCPX without the motion wrapper, they add a tab to make the distinction between plugins and plugins wrapped in templates & pure templates.