Anybody used FCPX3D MODEL 1.0 yet?

I found this on the Pixel Film Studio FCPX3D MODEL 1.0 looks really impressive for 49 bucks!!

Also anybody know where music is from?

Are you sure they didn't just steal MotionVFX's code and rebrand it? PFS is a shady company that excels at creating slick-looking promos for plugins that usually vastly underperform to expectations. I'll never spend another dime with them.

www.motionvfx.com/mblog/how_to_make_mone...opyrights,p2217.html

www.fcp.co/149-uncategorised/1046-after-...andards-and-problems

www.fcp.co/forum/4-final-cut-pro-x-fcpx/...ensive-mlk-promotion

Spend a few more bucks and get the real thing from MotionVFX: www.motionvfx.com/mplugs-33.html

from your links it seems both are coping from someone, no?

MotionVFX has been around for a LONG time, they're not stealing from anyone, they don't need to.

I'd not trust Pixel Film Studio after their track record.

I've been working with mObject for quite awhile now, and they also sell content, and it is way more sophisticated. I'll trust the company that has been doing an honest business for a long time now, thank you.

BenB wrote: MotionVFX has been around for a LONG time, they're not stealing from anyone, they don't need to.

I'd not trust Pixel Film Studio after their track record.

I've been working with mObject for quite awhile now, and they also sell content, and it is way more sophisticated. I'll trust the company that has been doing an honest business for a long time now, thank you.

I was referring to the article about MotionVFX here on FCP.co

50 bucks is a steel! mObjects is fine as long it stays stable.

You're saying MotionVFX copying the text/style of a Twitter contest equates to PFS' stealing and repackaging/selling a whole plugin? Ummm...

Well all I can say is you get what you pay for. As you'll no doubt soon discover.

Exactly. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.

For just a bit more money you get an much more mature and full featured product with mObject.

No contest.

I shall never purchase from PFS again but it does seem to address the idea of 3D directly in FCPX, which I thought was the original promise of mObject -- however it seems primarily focused as a Motion plugin. So I'm just sitting tight until Apple puts a first class 3d environment directly in FCPX

mObject works just fine in FCPX. I use it almost daily in FCPX. Only difference is that in Motion we have lights, shadows, particles, etc, that mObject works directly with. Those elements arent in FCPX. Thus, it isn't mainly focused on Motion, simply takes advantage of the elements already in Motion. You won't ever see that level of stuff in FCPX.

Don't hold your breath for Apple. They have clearly and publicly stated they are developing a DSLR type of model for FCPX. You buy the basic body, then third parties will offer the add ons, so you only pay for what you need. And there are third party developers who can do these things better, too.

I'll stick with the constantly evolving mObject, and keep my business with MotionVFX.

I agree. It's just too specific a functionality for Apple to spend time developing, when there are so many other areas that more users could take advantage of.

I don't tend to "hold my breath" for anything related to Apple. However I do believe they will add 3d support to FCPX

I can't imagine why you would. Colour Correction. Audio Mixing. Titles. These are basic parts of editorial and we should expect them to be there an be focus for improvement.

3D graphics within an NLE is a niche. It satisfies a middle ground of people who want a little flash, but don't want to go to an outside program that does those things infinitely better.

Personally, I'd think any time spend on native 3D object handling for FCPX is a waste of valuable development time.

Disproportionate Pictures wrote: I can't imagine why you would.

Really!? Can't imagine, or "don't agree so I shall not imagine?"

Colour Correction. Audio Mixing. Titles. These are basic parts of editorial and we should expect them to be there an be focus for improvement.

perhaps these reflect -your- restricted vision for the app?

3D graphics within an NLE is a niche. It satisfies a middle ground of people who want a little flash, but don't want to go to an outside program that does those things infinitely better.

Self serving argument based on your own personal needs/wants...see below:

Personally, I'd think any time spend on native 3D object handling for FCPX is a waste of valuable development time.

Precisely why you can't "imagine" another perspective. It's personal, and to support your vision you're hoping that everything else gets dismissed?

--I'd hope this forum doesn't to devolve to the perspective of just two or three persons' point of view.

FCPX is bigger than that.

Sorry. I'm not meaning to come off as dismissive, which looking at what I wrote I definitely would be. Apologies.

But I'm not sure how anything that we've seen so far in terms of the focus of development points to integrating highly specialized functionality that's not traditionally found in an NLE.

While technically anything could happen, it would be a 90 degree turn from the path of development so far. That's why I'm doubtful.

You're talking about FCPX being like SMOKE, which I just don't think is in the cards.

When AAF/OMF export is a 3rd party plugin, I see native 3d as a longshot.

Just my perspective, of course.

Agreed.

FCPguy

Please can you fix your email address as it keep s bouncing back. I'll have to suspend your account if you don't do this soon.

Peter

FCPguy

Please can you fix your email address as it keep s bouncing back. I'll have to suspend your account if you don't do this soon.

Peter