-
Matte and fill
Am I missing something here?
I tried some matte & fill keying. The objective is to end up with 3 elements: BG, hole cutter, inside fill. In order to key a graphic over the video and replace the inside fill with other video, you first have to build the combined “filled” item as a compound clip and then key that over the timeline. Several extra steps rather than simply building it in the timeline.
Also if you make a change in the compound, like blur or blow up the fill image, it doesn’t ripple/update in the timeline (project). Is this correct? Seems very convoluted.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
9 Replies
-
Not sure if I’ve understood your difficulty correctly but here’s what I just tried.
At the bottom I have my background layer, then I have my keyhole/matte (I’ve used an image with emdedded alpha) which I have set to Stencil Alpha (though I could use Silhouette Alpha if I wanted it the other way around), then I have the layer that I want cut out by the Stencil.
All I need to do is compound the top two layers (option/G) and I’ve got the cutout layer sitting on top of the background. (If I don’t compound those two layers I don’t see through to the background layer.)
I find I can then step into the compound (Ctrl/Square Bracket) apply a blur, transform either the fill or the matte or both and stepping back out of the compound I get the result I’m expecting.
Are you saying you’re getting unpredictable behaviour?
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “At the bottom I have my background layer, then I have my keyhole/matte”
I got it to work, but my layer order is different. Primary is the background, Connected Clip directly above the Primary is the fill image (appears inside the letters). Above that (V3 in any normal NLE) is the matte or hole cutter. This is a PNG with white letters on a transparent BG. Set it to Stencil Alpha and compound the matte and fill to appear correctly. So yes, it’s working, but I feel it’s utterly stupid that you have to compound the clip to get the right appearance. This means you can never tweak the appearance dynamically because you can’t see the whole composite when stepping into the compound. Apple basically copied everything that’s bad about Avid’s nesting procedures.
[Simon Ubsdell] “I find I can then step into the compound (Ctrl/Square Bracket) apply a blur, transform either the fill or the matte or both and stepping back out of the compound I get the result I’m expecting.”
This works. My error before was creating this compound in the Event. Obviously once it’s cut onto the timeline of the Project, it becomes independent of what’s in the Event. Goes back to FCP “legacy” behavior with “independent” and “affiliated” clips.
I’ve attached the finished timeline section and the compound clip. Thanks.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Anther way to do this without a compound is to have your Fill on the bottom, matte in the middle with the transfer mode applied to you matte type (Stencil alpha or what have you) then put the BG layer on top and set it’s transfer mode to “Behind”.
Jeremy
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Anther way to do this without a compound is to have your Fill on the bottom, matte in the middle with the transfer mode applied to you matte type (Stencil alpha or what have you) then put the BG layer on top and set it’s transfer mode to “Behind”.”
Nice! Although, pace Oliver, I do quite like having the matte and fill as a compound so you can affect them together but this is a neat trick.
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
I’m not completely against compounds, although it seems they don’t pass through translation, so my gut feeling is that they are ultimately just as evil as FCP7 nesting 😉
My real objection is that you HAVE to create a compound clip to get the desired result. A) This is counter-intuitive, B) poor software design and C) nowhere is this documented.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “I’m not completely against compounds, although it seems they don’t pass through translation, so my gut feeling is that they are ultimately just as evil as FCP7 nesting 😉
My real objection is that you HAVE to create a compound clip to get the desired result. A) This is counter-intuitive, B) poor software design and C) nowhere is this documented.”
Actually I don’t disagree with any of that!
As you say, it makes no sense at all to have to compound anything – unless, this is one of those outmoded track-based features that used to work and don’t work with the glorious new paradigm, who knows?
And yes, I think all the evidence points to compound clips being a lot less great than they’re cracked up to be. I know that if I were working on a serious project in FCPX I’d try to keep use of them to the absolute minimum to avoid the notorious project bloat issue. I mean, who knows when you might accidentally slice through one in a fit of misplaced creativity and double the size of your project?!
Apart from being able to break them apart, I fail, like you, to see why they are supposed to be such a huge improvement on the dreaded nest of old. Is there in fact any other significant difference?
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Oliver Peters] “My real objection is that you HAVE to create a compound clip to get the desired result”
You don’t have to in the process that I outlined.
Jeremy
-
No offense Jeremy, although it works, it’s any even more convoluted way than stacking in the “right” order and then compounding. Kudos to outwitting the ProApps folks, though! Just shows how half-baked the code may be. You come up with an oddball workaround, yet in theory both methods should result in the same image, but don’t. I wonder how Xto7 or Resolve would interpret that stack?
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “No offense Jeremy, although it works, it’s any even more convoluted way than stacking in the “right” order and then compounding.”
OK. Whatever lesser of two evils works. 🙂
[Oliver Peters] ” I wonder how Xto7 or Resolve would interpret that stack?”
Hopefully correctly? I don’t have either of them, but it did pique my interest to see how 7toX will do it.
Jeremy
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up