-
feature request: attach alpha to tracker
Here’s a request for the longterm wish list. I want to be able to attach a tiff or QT alpha channel to a tracked rectangular power window.
Imagine having a library of trees, clouds, blinds, etc.. to sell that day for night shot, fix that sky, or “do something” for your client about the actor against a blank wall. I really hate using the phrase, “we’ll need to do that on the flame”.
While this obviously ranks much lower than the more critical issues to be addressed, this is probably not too difficult to perform technically, and really moves Resolve in the right direction, for a future where compositing is a part of color.
-
6 Replies
-
-
I’m a little lost. Are you talking about creating something like a gobo?
twitter.com/illyalaney
-
Sounds like a gobo to me.
I can see why, though I don’t know if I’d vote for this one. All though I guess many of us have experience with compositing, I’d rather actually get material that already had this done by someone else. Or if it’s really, really important, do it myself in a compositor rather than DaVinci.
But then again, I was put on test by a man who’s “been there” in one of the biggest post houses here. They use Mistika, and he was asking if I could do similar things in the same package, like logo and billboard replacement… So who knows, maybe they’d want something like this..
-
Well, I do picture-on-Picture stuff every day in Scratch and I can not live without it.
Fundamental compositing tools are a must, same as a planar tracker for some.
I use for fixing booms, replace skies, cover blemishes, scars, duplicate trees, simple degrain and so on. -
Hi.
For this kind of stuff one would want to use mocha Pro.
Masks, replacement, mattes the works.
I see no point having them in Resolve.
Better to have one really good product than one that does everything just a little bit.—
Margus
-
You could call this a gobo, but I’m not suggesting that we turn Resolve into a compositing box. These are purely tools for color finishing.
When a client asks me to replace a bad sky, or do a day for night shot, or dress up a really boring shot, they assume I can because they’ve definitely done it before in some other studio. Probably on Scratch or Flame. My choice is to say “we can’t do that”, or do the job without these tools, and look mildly incompetent. The client only knows they can do it, not why I can’t.
At this point these features are an assumption by about 30% of my clients. But that number will rise steadily, and putting your head in the sand that it’s “not something we can do” is a strategy of denial. Content expectations are higher than ever before, and we’re paid to make stuff look its best, not to even out exposure differences.
Again, this should be a pretty simple feature to implement. If its a huge thing to do, then I’ll have to live without it.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up